On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:59 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Yes, that looks like a good idea. Thanks, Miklos
