On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 05:20:12AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > Why not? To be clear, I'm talking about an io_submit() with > multiple IO_CMD_FSYNC requests, with a kernel implementation that is > able to batch these requests. IO_CMD_FSYNC doesn't exist right now, but sure, it means we don't have to add a new syscall. I find the aio interface to be horribly complicated, and it would mean that programs would have to link against libaio, which again isn't my favorite set of interfaces. All of that being said, I do agree that adding a new IO_CMD_FSYNC, IO_CMD_FSYNCDATA, IO_CMD_FSYNC_NOBARRIER, and IOCMD_FSYNC_DATA_NOBARRIER would be the simplist thing to do from a kernel implementation perspective. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
