On Sat, March 12, 2011 03:52, Ric Wheeler wrote: > Sage was pretty clear in stating the motivation which is the use case you > think is questionable. Probably not interesting for consumer devices, but > definitely extremely interesting in large servers with multiple file systems. Not really, he just said "It is frequently useful to sync a single file system", without giving any use cases. He then gave two situations where either sync or fsync isn't sufficient, to which I replied earlier and you called missing the point. But that's not the same as giving a use case. > > In fact, we do it today as mentioned earlier in the thread - this simply > exports that useful capability in a clean way. Did you use the remount trick or the ioctl? If the latter, is it sufficient for your need? If the first, would guaranteeing that mount -o remount,rw trick will keep working solve the problem for you? When or why would you want to sync one specific filesystem? As you're doing it, you could explain your use case better instead of telling me I'm missing the point. If sync(2) didn't exist and people wanted to add it I'd complain too. This has all the problems of sync(2), but with the "not sure if all the files are on the file system I think" problem added. Greetings, Indan -- 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
