On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:49:09 -0400 "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:10:55PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > In almost all cases you don't care so you wouldn't use it. In those cases > > where it might matter it's almost always the case that a reader won't > > consume it before it hits the media. > > > > That's why I suggested having an fbarrier() so you can explicitly say 'in > > the even that case does happen then stall and write it'. It's kind of > > lazy fsync. That can be used with almost no cost by things like mail > > daemons. > > How could mail daemons use it? They *have* to do an fsync() before > they send a 2xx SMTP return code. Point - so actually it would be less useful > > Another way given that this only really makes sense with locks > > is to add that fbarrier notion as a file locking optional semantic so you > > can 'unlock with barrier' and 'lock with barrier honoured' > > I'm not sure what you're suggesting? If someone has an actual case you could in theory constrain it to a range specified in a file lock and only between two people who care. That said seems like a lot of complexity to make a case nobody cares about only affect people who care about it Alan
