On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 05:35:51PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> I like that. It looks really clear and self-documenting, if
> vfs_fsync_range does what it sounds like, which is a nice change.
>
> If I've guessed right what that code does, proper O_RSYNC will be easy:
>
> int generic_sync_before_read(struct file *file, loff_t pos, loff_t count)
> {
> int is_sync = ((file->f_flags & O_SYNC)
> || IS_SYNC(file->f_mapping->host));
> int is_dsync = is_sync || (file->f_flags & O_DSYNC);
>
> if (!is_dsync || !(file->f_flags & O_RSYNC))
> return 0;
> return vfs_fsync_range(file, file->f_ath.denty, pos,
> pos + count - 1, is_sync);
> }
Yes. something like this.
> (By the way, did I mention Irix has range-fsync and range-fdatasync
> system calls too :-) (actually fcntls))
Linux has sync_file_range which currently is a perfect way to lose your
synced' data, but with two more flags and calls to ->fsync we could
turn it into range-fsync/fdatasync. I'm not sure if that's a good
idea or if we should just add a sys_fdatasync_rage systems call.
I don't quite see the point of a range-fsync, but it could be easily
implemented as a flag.
--
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
