Andreas Dilger wrote:
I don't see that calling this "NO_BYPASS" is significantly different than calling it "NO_DIRECT". You can "bypass" that flag just as easily, the point is that you may get garbage out of it, don't do that.
I agree that the name of the flag does not change what we intend it to do... which is to say the storage can not be reached by directly accessing the physical device.
I don't think anyone writing an application will be seriously confused.
If you can say that with a straight face, you must not have had much experience with commercial application developers. No matter how carefully your try to explain it, "NO_DIRECT" is going to be confused with the O_DIRECT feature. What I'm saying is that we should find some other name for the flag than "NO_DIRECT" because it is easier than trying to explain away the confusion. Any other suggestions? jim -- 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
