Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:22:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:22:43 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:39178 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:22:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:22:24 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: "Patrick J. LoPresti" Cc: Chris Mason , Chris Wedgwood , Alan Cox , Subject: Re: ext3-2.4-0.9.4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On 30 Jul 2001, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > performance hit of synchronous data. Heck, just having link() and > rename() perform a commit would be good enough for almost all > applications. It would be "good enough" for some applications, but it would be absolutely disastrous for most applications I run (ie. moving source code around). Exactly what is wrong with doing fsync() on the directory ? Why do you want us to turn link() and rename() into link_slowly() and rename_slowly() ? Why can't you use a simple wrapper function to do this for you ? cheers, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/