[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110311235607.GB15853@elie>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:56:15 -0600
From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>
To: Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de,
l@...per.es
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system
Indan Zupancic wrote:
> If there still is a good reason to implement this, please don't add it
> as a new system call, but add it to sync_file_range(), as that seems
> the best place for odd file synchronisation operations.
I have no strong preference about how this is added (and in fact I'm
quite ignorant about the usual conventions), but:
- as a sysadmin, it really _would_ be nice to be able to say
"sync /usr" to sync /usr;
- the existing functionality of sync_file_range is about controlling
writeback behavior for files, not mounts.
So unless there is a shortage of syscall numbers or something, I find
the request to omit this or tack it onto sync_file_range odd. Could
you explain the benefit?
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
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