From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:56:15 -0600 Message-ID: <20110311235607.GB15853@elie> References: <201103111255.44979.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Indan Zupancic Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Sage Weil , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, l@jasper.es List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Indan Zupancic wrote: > If there still is a good reason to implement this, please don't add it > as a new system call, but add it to sync_file_range(), as that seems > the best place for odd file synchronisation operations. I have no strong preference about how this is added (and in fact I'm quite ignorant about the usual conventions), but: - as a sysadmin, it really _would_ be nice to be able to say "sync /usr" to sync /usr; - the existing functionality of sync_file_range is about controlling writeback behavior for files, not mounts. So unless there is a shortage of syscall numbers or something, I find the request to omit this or tack it onto sync_file_range odd. Could you explain the benefit? Thanks, Jonathan