On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 07:47:43 -0500 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 12:50:32PM +0000, Alun wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said, in message > > 20121207124415.GA28504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > > > > > It might be better to send a kernel patch to do a first async sync > > > attempt instead of band aiding this in one of the consumers. > > > > That's what I did originally - see > > http://marc.info/?t=135474654500003&r=1&w=2 > > So let's keep the discussion there, if you do exactly the same call > from userspace the same arguments still apply. I'm out of my depth when it comes to the politics of all this. So I think I'm going to bow out now. I'd already got the solution to my specific issue (write a tiny "syncfs" program and call it from my script prior to taking a snapshot). While I'd like to try and help others avoid the same pitfall as me, I'm not motivated enough to blunder any further into this disagreement. Cheers, Alun. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
