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

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:56:08 -0600
Andreas Dilger [off-list ref] wrote:

Should there be a "wait" argument or flag that allows an app to start the syncfs(), do something, and then call again to wait for completion?

I don't think so.  If userspace wants to do that then fork().

quoted

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?

That would be nice, but is probably a pretty complex thing to
implement.  The manpage should include words indicating that syncfs()
can return an errno.  That way, userspace will hopefully have the
appropriate checks, whcih will become more useful if/when the kernel
implementation gets fixed up.