From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: filesystem transactions API Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:50:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20050426155006.GD14297@mail.shareable.org> References: <20050424211942.GN13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050426134629.GU16169@viasys.com> <20050426141426.GC10833@mail.shareable.org> <426E4EBD.6070104@oktetlabs.ru> <20050426143247.GF10833@mail.shareable.org> <17006.22498.394169.98413@smtp.charter.net> <1114528782.13568.8.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Trond Myklebust , John Stoffel , "Artem B. Bityuckiy" , Ville Herva , Linux Filesystem Development Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:16041 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261576AbVDZPuP (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:50:15 -0400 To: ritesh@cs.unc.edu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ritesh Kumar wrote: > I was wondering if it was also important to commit the changes to > persistent storage once the transaction has been completed or is it > just important that all processes see the changes atomically. I mean, > is it also important that before any of the processes see the result > of the transaction, or before the 'transacting' process knows the > transaction is complete, the changes must be flushed to persistent > storage? That would be all the more reason to implement it in kernel > space... They are different kinds of transaction, that's all. The kernel could provide either kind, or both. A logical way to offer both would be to include fsync/fdatasync/fdatasync_range operations in a transaction. -- Jamie