Re: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers

[Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>]

On 08/28/2009 09:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'll put it on my todo list.

Any ABI change like this takes a long time to trickle down.

If this is agreed to be the correct approach then adding the O_* 
definitions earlier is better.  Even if it isn't yet implemented.  Then, 
once the kernel side is implemented, programs are ready to use it.  I 
cannot jump the gun and define the flags myself first.


>   - O_RSYNC basically means we need to commit atime updates before a
>     read returns, right?

No, that's not it.

O_RSYNC on its own just means the data is successfully transferred to 
the calling process (always the case).

O_RSYNC|O_DSYNC means that if a read request hits data that is currently 
in a cache and not yet on the medium, then the write to medium is 
successful before the read succeeds.

O_RSYNC|O_SYNC means the same plus the integrity of file meta 
information (access time etc).

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html