Re: about ubifs

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org>]

On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 13:29 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 13:01 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > I was thinking both sync-on-close and sync-on-close-after-truncate
> > > would be most useful as _generic_ mount options, in the same way that
> > > O_SYNC has generic filesystem support these days.
> > 
> > May be. On the other hand this would kill any remote possibility of
> > having user-space fixed :-)
> 
> My point was that "fixing" user-space by requiring every shell script
> to run a special (currently non-existing) fsync program after every
> thing it does which modifies a file (virtually every shell command)
> which has an ordered relationship with other files is stupid.

> It's fine for C programs to call fsync() (e.g. I'm good about doing
> that) even though it's sometimes breaks performance, but it's
> unhelpful to sprinkle every other line in every shell script with it,
> as it would defeat the point of shell scripts which is simplicity.

Not necessarily. Shell scripts may always just re-create their
files every time. Or re-create them if they are empty. Or for
large files use /bin/sync. Or even a /bin/fsync program can be
created.

But yes, I see what you mean, of course.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)