From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:58:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:58:26 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([199.183.24.200]:49177 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:58:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:57:59 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Oliver Xymoron Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Theodore Tso , Andrew McNamara , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ext2, fsync() and MTA's? Message-ID: <20010522175759.S8080@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20010522174825.Q8080@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from oxymoron@waste.org on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:54:55AM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:54:55AM -0500, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > > > That's probably the right thing to add. > > > > > > I'd vote for an async flag instead. > > > > Why??? Why change the default behaviour to be something much slower? > > I was suggesting an async flag _in addition_ to the sync flag, both > propagating to subdirs. Nice and orthogonal. The whole problem is that the flag applies to both files and directories, but we often only want it enforced on directories (because we already have fsync for files). Adding another orthogonal file+dir async flag won't help that at all. Cheers, Stephen