Query about fuse ->sync_fs and virtiofs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Miklos,

Robert Krawitz drew attention to the fact that fuse does not seem to
have a ->sync_fs implementation. That probably means that in case of
virtiofs, upon sync()/syncfs(), host cache will not be written back
to disk. And that's not something people expect.

I read somewhere that fuse did not implement ->sync_fs because file
server might not be trusted and it could block sync().

In case of virtiofs, file server is trusted entity (w.r.t guest kernel),
so it probably should be ok to implement ->sync_fs atleast for virtiofs?

Was looking for your thoughts on this before I look into implementing it.

Thanks
Vivek




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux