On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:55:23AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 04:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:28:29PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > > Change the behavior of core.fsyncObjectFiles to also sync the
> > > directory entry. I don't have a case where this broke, just going by
> > > paranoia and the fsync(2) manual page's guarantees about its behavior.
> >
> > It is not just paranoia, but indeed what is required from the standards
> > POV. At least for many Linux file systems your second fsync will be
> > very cheap (basically a NULL syscall) as the log has alredy been forced
> > all the way by the first one, but you can't rely on that.
>
> Is it sufficient to fsync() just the surrounding directory? I.e., if I
> do:
>
> mkdir("a");
> mkdir("a/b");
> open("a/b/c", O_WRONLY);
>
> is it enough to fsync() a descriptor pointing to "a/b", or should I
> also do "a"?
You need to fsync both to be fully compliant, even if just fsyncing b
will work for most but not all file systems. The good news is that
for those common file systems the extra fsync of a is almost free.
