Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()

[Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:26:50 +0000 Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
> 
> > (It would be nicer if sync_file_range()
> > took a vector of ranges for better elevator scheduling, but let's
> > ignore that :-)
> 
> Two passes:
> 
> Pass 1: shove each of the segments into the queue with
>         SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE|SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE
> 
> Pass 2: wait for them all to complete and return accumulated result
>         with SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER

Thanks.

Seems ok, though being able to cork the I/O until the last one would
be a bonus (like TCP_MORE...  SYNC_FILE_RANGE_MORE?)

I'm imagining I'd omit the SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE.  Is there a
reason why you have it there?  The man page isn't very enlightening.

-- Jamie