Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I agree the mount option needs to die, and I fully grok the reasoning. > What I'm concerned with is that a system using fully-DAX-aware > applications is forced to incur the overhead of maintaining *sync > semantics, periodic sync(2) in particular, even if it is not relying > on those semantics. > > However, like I said in my other mail, we can solve that with > alternate interfaces to persistent memory if that becomes an issue and > not require that "disable *sync" capability to come through DAX. What do you envision these alternate interfaces looking like? -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
