Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:10:01PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 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.

No, make it a syscall, it's more obvious and will be documented much
better.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux