Indan Zupancic wrote: > I'm not pushing for any official convention, just what seems good taste. In cases like this, conventions (consistency and best practices) are very important. > Less code added, less bloat. Architecture independent, no need to update > all system call tables everywhere (all archs, libc versions and strace). > Two files changed, instead of 7 (which only hooks up x86). Thanks for explaining. Those do seem like good reasons to use a ioctl instead of a new syscall. > In this case it's just a performance improvement over sync(2). It doesn't > add a new feature. Main argument given for the performance problem seems > to be "NFS can be slow". Anything else? Huh? It is not just the speed of the sync --- unnecessary writeback will cause wear on your thumbdrive, eat up your laptop battery, and kill I/O performance in other tasks running at the same time. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here at all. Would you say that fsync is superfluous, too? Jonathan -- 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
