[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090830164411.GB7129@shareable.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:44:11 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> P.S. better naming suggestions for O_FULLSYNC welcome
O_FULLSYNC might get confused with MacOS X's F_FULLSYNC, which means
something else: fsync through hardware volatile write caches.
(Might we even want to provide O_FULLSYNC and O_FULLDATASYNC to mean
that, eventually?)
O_ISYNC is a bit misleading if we don't really offer "flush just the
inode state" by itself.
So it should at least start with underscores: __O_ISYNC.
How about __O_SYNC_NEW with
#define O_SYNC (O_DSYNC|__O_SYNC_NEW)
I think that tells people reading the headers a bit about what to
expect on older kernels too.
-- Jamie
--
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