On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 09:29:17PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
quoted
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Indan Zupancic wrote:
quoted
Everyone seems to want to add this new syncfs, but it's not even defined
what it does. "Same as sync, but only on one fs" is IMHO not good
enough, because sync's behaviour is pretty badly documented, and that's
a system call.
How about the man page below? I tried to avoid the somewhat antiquated
implementation specific terminology in the sync(2) man page.
I think adding this functionality into sync_file_range(2) is forcing
unrelated functionality into an existing interface; sync_file_range
operates on _files_, not an entire file system. With each API addition it
is more important to make the interface simple and intuitive than to
minimize the size of our patches. IMO that's why a new syscall is
preferable to, say, an equivalent ioctl.
Thanks-
sage
.TH SYNCFS 2 2011-03-13 "Linux" "Linux Programmer's Manual"
.SH NAME
syncfs \- commit cached file system state to stable storage
.SH SYNOPSIS
.B #include <unistd.h>
.sp
.B void syncfs(int fd);
.SH DESCRIPTION
.BR syncfs ()
flushes any cached data modifications to the file system containing the
file referenced by the file descriptor
.I fd
to stable storage (usually a disk). This includes the results of any
file modifications or other file system operations that have completed
prior to the call to
.BR syncfs(2).
This is similar to
.BR sync(2),
but will commit changes for only a single file system instead of all
mounted file systems.
.SH ERRORS
This function is always successful.
Perhaps we should consider propagating errors out to the user
application rather than discarding them in kernel and pretending we
can't ever have a write error?
Yeah. It also occurred to me shortly after sending this that, at the very
least, we should return an error so that users can get ENOSYS on older
kernels.
sage