[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110312021001.GA16833@elie>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:10:01 -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:
> I'm not pushing for any official convention, just what seems good taste.
In cases like this, conventions (consistency and best practices) are
very important.
> Less code added, less bloat. Architecture independent, no need to update
> all system call tables everywhere (all archs, libc versions and strace).
> Two files changed, instead of 7 (which only hooks up x86).
Thanks for explaining. Those do seem like good reasons to use a ioctl
instead of a new syscall.
> In this case it's just a performance improvement over sync(2). It doesn't
> add a new feature. Main argument given for the performance problem seems
> to be "NFS can be slow". Anything else?
Huh? It is not just the speed of the sync --- unnecessary writeback
will cause wear on your thumbdrive, eat up your laptop battery, and
kill I/O performance in other tasks running at the same time.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here at all. Would
you say that fsync is superfluous, too?
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