# Re: \[PATCH v3\] introduce sys\_syncfs to sync a single file system

- From: Jonathan Nieder \<hidden\>
- Date: 2011-03-12 02:10:01 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2011/03/51630
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2011/03/51630/t.md

```text
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.

> In this case it's just a performance improvement over sync(2). It doesn't
> add a new feature. Main argument given for the performance problem seems
> to be "NFS can be slow". Anything else?

Huh?  It is not just the speed of the sync --- unnecessary writeback
will cause wear on your thumbdrive, eat up your laptop battery, and
kill I/O performance in other tasks running at the same time.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here at all.  Would
you say that fsync is superfluous, too?

Jonathan
```