From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230] helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com)
	by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1MDevz-0005H8-Bt
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:30:50 +0000
Subject: Re: about ubifs
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090608122934.GG25684@shareable.org>
References: <1244204035.18630.0.camel@tommy-desktop>
	<71cd59b00906050542v72c228a0r883cef7795189fe9@mail.gmail.com>
	<1244206994.20718.7.camel@tommy-desktop>
	<71cd59b00906050704m650d9701q1012dc8b649d8d7f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090608013528.GI15426@shareable.org>
	<1244440195.5847.327.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20090608120110.GE25684@shareable.org>
	<1244463373.5847.357.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20090608122934.GG25684@shareable.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:30:28 +0300
Message-Id: <1244467828.5847.362.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, tommy <jiujin.hong@mid-fun.com>,
	Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

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)