On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:56:36AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 09:32 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > Jamie Lokier wrote: > > > >> Is there anything that particularly makes it a file operation > > >> as opposed to an inode operation? > > >> > > > > > > In principle, is fsync() required to flush all dirty data written > > > through any file descriptor ever, or just dirty data written through > > > the file descriptor used for fsync()? > > > > > > -- Jamie > > > -- > > > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fsync.html > > > > Is a pointer to what seems to be the official posix spec for this - it > > is definitely per file descriptor, not per file system, etc... > > > > Maybe I'm reading Jamie's question wrong, but I think he's saying: > > /* open exactly the same file twice */ > fd = open("file"); > fd2 = open("file"); > > write(fd, "stuff") > write(fd2, "more stuff") > fsync(fd); > > Does the fsync promise "more stuff" will be on disk? I think the answer > should be yes. I think so. And this is in the context of making ->fsync an inode operation and avoid the NFS NULL-file problem... I don't think there is any fd specific metadata that fsync has to deal with? Any other reasons it has to be a file operation? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
