From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: O_DIRECT and barriers Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:34:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20090827143459.GB31453@shareable.org> References: <1250697884-22288-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20090820221221.GA14440@infradead.org> <20090821114010.GG12579@kernel.dk> <20090821135403.GA6208@shareable.org> <20090821142635.GB30617@infradead.org> <20090821152459.GC6929@shareable.org> <20090821174525.GA28861@infradead.org> <20090822005006.GA22530@shareable.org> <20090824023422.GA775@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:37046 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751109AbZH0OfH (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:35:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090824023422.GA775@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Then again they already don't get what they expect and never did, > so if we clear document and communicate the O_SYNC (that is Linux > O_SYNC) requirement we might be able to go with this. I'm thinking, while we're looking at this, that now is a really good time to split up O_SYNC and O_DSYNC. We have separate fsync and fdatasync, so it should be quite tidy now. Then we can document using O_DSYNC on Linux, which is fine for older versions because it has the same value as O_SYNC at the moment. -- Jamie