From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.19-rc1/2.5.25 provide dummy fsync() routine for directories on NFS mounts Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:08:43 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <200207091549.15913.trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17Rvfj-0007Ws-00 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 07:08:56 -0700 To: root@chaos.analogic.com In-Reply-To: Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Richard B Johnson writes: > I think code that opens a directory as a file is broken. We > have opendir() for that and it returns a DIR pointer, not a > file descriptor. If the directory was properly opened, one > would never attempt to fsync() it. fsync() is supported on directories on local filesystems as a way of ensuring that changes (due to file creation etc) are committed to disk. Where is the POSIX violation in that? There is no reason why NFS, which ensures this anyway, should not adhere to this convention. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Stuff, things, and much much more. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs