From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:42:34 -0500
Subject: [Cluster-devel] fallocate vs O_(D)SYNC
In-Reply-To: <20111116133915.GD8195@quack.suse.cz>
References: <20111116084256.GA22963@infradead.org>
	<1321436588.2713.5.camel@menhir>
	<20111116105413.GA2916@quack.suse.cz>
	<20111116124550.GA11650@infradead.org>
	<20111116133915.GD8195@quack.suse.cz>
Message-ID: <20111116134234.GA24258@infradead.org>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:39:15PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > This would work fine with XFS and be equivalent to what it does for
> > O_DSYNC now.  But I'd rather see every filesystem do the right thing
> > and make sure the update actually is on disk when doing O_(D)SYNC
> > operations.
>   OK, I don't really have a strong opinion here. Are you afraid that just
> calling fsync() need not be enough to push all updates fallocate did to
> disk?

No, the point is that you should not have to call fsync when doing
O_SYNC I/O.  That's the whole point of it.