From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:45:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4D7D7325.2040708@garzik.org> References: <201103111255.44979.arnd@arndb.de> <4D7AC0FE.8070806@gmail.com> <1d4d1b7ae64da97f44cad0e2bda4f832.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> <4D7ADFDD.9080108@gmail.com> <4D7BBC03.3020404@garzik.org> <89481603ed9cfc86efaa039c2dfeb955.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ric Wheeler , Arnd Bergmann , Sage Weil , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" , Jonathan Nieder , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, l@jasper.es To: Indan Zupancic Return-path: In-Reply-To: <89481603ed9cfc86efaa039c2dfeb955.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 03/13/2011 09:31 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote: > The new syscall works on only one fd too. The behaviour of the proposed > syncfs and an extended sync_file_range is exactly the same. No, it's not. You should read the patch before commenting. Jeff