On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:18:06AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:57:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 16-11-11 08:42:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:39:15PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > This would work fine with XFS and be equivalent to what it does for > > > > > O_DSYNC now. But I'd rather see every filesystem do the right thing > > > > > and make sure the update actually is on disk when doing O_(D)SYNC > > > > > operations. > > > > OK, I don't really have a strong opinion here. Are you afraid that just > > > > calling fsync() need not be enough to push all updates fallocate did to > > > > disk? > > > > > > No, the point is that you should not have to call fsync when doing > > > O_SYNC I/O. That's the whole point of it. > > I agree with you that userspace shouldn't have to call fsync. What I > > meant is that sys_fallocate() or do_fallocate() can call > > generic_write_sync(file, pos, len), and that would be completely > > transparent to userspace. > > We should do it per FS though, I'll patch up btrfs. I agree about doing it per FS. Ocfs2 just needs a one-liner to mark the journal transaction as synchronous. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh -- 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
