From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fpathconf() for fsync() behavior Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:48:01 -0400 Message-ID: <49F06381.3090605@garzik.org> References: <20090423001257.GA16540@shell> <20090422221748.8c9022d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090423112105.GA1589@shareable.org> <20090423124230.GF2723@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Theodore Tso , Jamie Lokier , Andrew Morton , Valerie Aurora Henson , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:32832 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753621AbZDWMsm (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:48:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090423124230.GF2723@mit.edu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso wrote: > So we can create a more finer-grained controlled system call --- > although I would suggest that we just add some extra flags to > sync_file_range() --- but it's doubtful that many application > programmers will use it. sync_file_range() seems the obvious avenue for new fsync flags. I even explored what it would take to add a "flush storage dev writeback cache, for this file" flag to sync_file_range(), rather unfortunately non-trivial given the current implementation's close ties to MM. But yeah... how many people will use these fancy new flags and features? Jeff