(sorry if this is a duplicate, my previous email was rejected) Hi Andi, On Seg, 2008-04-21 at 10:01 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > (I continue to be surprised at the un-safety of Linux fsync) > > Note barrier less does not necessarily always mean unsafe fsync, > it just often means that. Am I correct that the Linux fsync(), when used (from userspace) directly on file descriptors associated with block devices doesn't actually flush the disk write cache and wait for the data to reach the disk before returning? Is there a reason why this isn't being done other than performance? I would imagine that the only reason a process is using fsync() is because it is worried about data loss, and therefore is perfectly willing to lose some performance if necessary.. Regards, Ricardo -- Ricardo Manuel Correia Lustre Engineering Sun Microsystems, Inc. Portugal Phone +351.214134023 / x58723 Mobile +351.912590825 Email Ricardo.M.Correia@xxxxxxx -- 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
