Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:59:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:59:44 -0500 Received: from [194.213.32.137] ([194.213.32.137]:3332 "EHLO bug.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:59:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20001103201845.A131@bug.ucw.cz> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:18:45 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Linus Torvalds Cc: Alan Cox , Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux-2.4.0-test10 In-Reply-To:

<20001102171717.L1876@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: <20001102171717.L1876@redhat.com>; from Stephen C. Tweedie on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:17:17PM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > The patch I sent fully implements O_SYNC (actually, it implements > O_DSYNC, which is allowed to skip the inode sync if the only attribute > which has changed is the timestamps) and fdatasync. It's easy for me > to make the DSYNC selectable via sysctl for full SU compliance, and I > know of other unixes that already do this --- you really don't want > existing database applications suddenly to start seeking to the inode > block for every O_SYNC write. It looks to me like times updates are upper-bound by once per second, no? So this should not be (big) issue. Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/