On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:56:08 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Should there be a "wait" argument or flag that allows an app to start the syncfs(), do something, and then call again to wait for completion? I don't think so. If userspace wants to do that then fork(). > > Perhaps we should consider propagating errors out to the user > > application rather than discarding them in kernel and pretending we > > can't ever have a write error? That would be nice, but is probably a pretty complex thing to implement. The manpage should include words indicating that syncfs() can return an errno. That way, userspace will hopefully have the appropriate checks, whcih will become more useful if/when the kernel implementation gets fixed up. -- 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
