Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

5 messages, 4 authors, 2011-03-14 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

From: Jeff Garzik <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-12 18:31:31

On 03/11/2011 10:50 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote:
If sync(2) didn't exist and people wanted to add it I'd complain too. This
has all the problems of sync(2), but with the "not sure if all the files are
on the file system I think" problem added.
You are decades too late, then...

sync_file_range() is not appropriate because that works on only one fd.

The new syscall is fine, and addresses a need.

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

From: Indan Zupancic <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-14 01:31:49

On Sat, March 12, 2011 19:31, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 03/11/2011 10:50 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote:
quoted
If sync(2) didn't exist and people wanted to add it I'd complain too. This
has all the problems of sync(2), but with the "not sure if all the files are
on the file system I think" problem added.
You are decades too late, then...
I know.
sync_file_range() is not appropriate because that works on only one fd.

The new syscall is fine, and addresses a need.
The new syscall works on only one fd too. The behaviour of the proposed
syncfs and an extended sync_file_range is exactly the same.

Greetings,

Indan

Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

From: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Date: 2011-03-14 01:37:44

On Mar 13, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote:
The new syscall works on only one fd too. The behaviour of the proposed
syncfs and an extended sync_file_range is exactly the same.
No, it's quite different.   One syncs the entire file system; sync_file_range
requests that the pages associated with a file be pushed to disk --- it says
nothing about the metadata associated with the file.

I'm in favor of the new sys_syncfs system call.

-- Ted

Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

From: Jeff Garzik <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-14 01:45:09

On 03/13/2011 09:31 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote:
The new syscall works on only one fd too. The behaviour of the proposed
syncfs and an extended sync_file_range is exactly the same.
No, it's not.  You should read the patch before commenting.

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

From: Indan Zupancic <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-14 01:47:48

On Mon, March 14, 2011 02:37, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mar 13, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote:
quoted
The new syscall works on only one fd too. The behaviour of the proposed
syncfs and an extended sync_file_range is exactly the same.
No, it's quite different.   One syncs the entire file system; sync_file_range
requests that the pages associated with a file be pushed to disk --- it says
nothing about the metadata associated with the file.
You missed the part where a new flag for sync_file_range would be added that
does sync the whole file system.
I'm in favor of the new sys_syncfs system call.
Care to define its behaviour? Does it wait till all data is written out,
does it flush disk caches, what if new data is written to the fs while
a sync is going on, etc.

Greetings,

Indan
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help