On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote: >> Don't terminate the watchdog daemon when fsync() fails because no >> watchdog driver actually implements the fsync() syscall. > > Wouldn't it be simpler then to just do an fsync without checking the error-result? Yes, it definitly would be. Though I think it would be even simpler to simply ditch the fsync() call. Considering that none of the watchdog drivers implements it, nor can I think of a usecase where it would make sense to implement (as more than a NOP). So instead I suggest the patch following this line: ======================================================================== doc: watchdog simple example: don't fail on fsync() Don't terminate the watchdog daemon when fsync() fails because no watchdog driver actually implements the fsync() syscall. Signed-off-by: Giel van Schijndel <me@xxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-simple.c | 3 --- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-simple.c b/Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-simple.c index 4cf72f3..ba45803 100644 --- a/Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-simple.c +++ b/Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-simple.c @@ -17,9 +17,6 @@ int main(void) ret = -1; break; } - ret = fsync(fd); - if (ret) - break; sleep(10); } close(fd); -- 1.6.4.4 -- Met vriendelijke groet, With kind regards, Giel van Schijndel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
