On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 06:30:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I still suspect that if we want to do this, we should strive to expose > all the other syncing flags from sync_file_range() too. sync_file_range is entirely different from fsync - sync_file_range allows you detailed control of data writeback, but it does not allow to commit metadata at all, i.e. it's not a data integrity operation. > Yeah, that's more of a "keep writes streaming" interface than a > fsync() like interface, but I think the two really do fit together. > It's kind of sad how we have this very fragmented interface to > writeback, where some operations take that "data vs metadata", some > operations take a range of bytes, and some operations take that "start > writeback vs wait for it", but nothing does all of the above. They are > really just different faces of the same writeback coin. sync_file_range at the moment actually doesn't involve the fs, which has it's own set of problems. So yes, maybe we need a full blown sync method unifying fsync, sync_file_range and which enables ranged data integrity fsync and asynchronous operations of all this. But to go back to Dave's argument - none of that can archived with that aio_fsync method added more than 10 years ago and never implemented. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
