From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YB9ol-000684-82 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:20:07 +0000 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YB9oj-0001sk-SU for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:20:07 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:19:58 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <20150113221958.GA27739@infradead.org> References: <1421187358-32600-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1421187358-32600-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH] hostfs: Use noop_fsync for directories To: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:15:58PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs > because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories. > While fsync(2) is allowed to fail with EINVAL if the filesystem does not > support it we can do better and use noop_fsync() to not confuse userspace > further. Shouldn't hostfs pass the fsync through to the host filesystem? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] hostfs: Use noop_fsync for directories Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:19:58 -0800 Message-ID: <20150113221958.GA27739@infradead.org> References: <1421187358-32600-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, dxld@darkboxed.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Weinberger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1421187358-32600-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:15:58PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs > because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories. > While fsync(2) is allowed to fail with EINVAL if the filesystem does not > support it we can do better and use noop_fsync() to not confuse userspace > further. Shouldn't hostfs pass the fsync through to the host filesystem?