[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A9806D9.5050409@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:33:29 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers
On 08/28/2009 09:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'll put it on my todo list.
Any ABI change like this takes a long time to trickle down.
If this is agreed to be the correct approach then adding the O_*
definitions earlier is better. Even if it isn't yet implemented. Then,
once the kernel side is implemented, programs are ready to use it. I
cannot jump the gun and define the flags myself first.
> - O_RSYNC basically means we need to commit atime updates before a
> read returns, right?
No, that's not it.
O_RSYNC on its own just means the data is successfully transferred to
the calling process (always the case).
O_RSYNC|O_DSYNC means that if a read request hits data that is currently
in a cache and not yet on the medium, then the write to medium is
successful before the read succeeds.
O_RSYNC|O_SYNC means the same plus the integrity of file meta
information (access time etc).
--
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists