On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:34:59PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Then again they already don't get what they expect and never did, > > so if we clear document and communicate the O_SYNC (that is Linux > > O_SYNC) requirement we might be able to go with this. > > I'm thinking, while we're looking at this, that now is a really good > time to split up O_SYNC and O_DSYNC. > > We have separate fsync and fdatasync, so it should be quite tidy now. > > Then we can document using O_DSYNC on Linux, which is fine for older > versions because it has the same value as O_SYNC at the moment. Technically we could easily make O_SYNC really mean O_SYNC and implement a seaprate O_DSYNC at the kernel level. The question is how to handle this at the libc level. Currently glibc defines O_DSYNC to be O_SYNC. We would need to update glibc to pass through O_DSYNC for newer kernels and make sure it falls back to O_SYNC for olders. I'm not sure how feasible this is, but maybe Ulrich has some better ideas. -- 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
