[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110616114045.GA27060@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:40:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Prasad Joshi <prasadjoshi124@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Asias He <asias.hejun@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native Linux KVM tool v2
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 01:22:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Such as? I don't think apps can actually know whether disk blocks
> > have been 'instantiated' by a particular filesystem or not, so
> > the manpage:
>
> In general they can't. The only good use case for sync_file_range
> is to paper over^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontrol write back behaviour.
Well, if overwrite is fundamentally safe on a filesystem (which is
most of them) then sync_file_range() would work - and it has the big
advantage that it's a pretty simple facility.
Filesystems that cannot guarantee that should map their
sync_file_range() implementation to fdatasync() or so, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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