Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754046Ab1CLCKL (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:10:11 -0500 Received: from mail-yi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:57871 "EHLO mail-yi0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752784Ab1CLCKJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:10:09 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ld3GjQv5WWigg9fTkeseFjBoUUYTMPsmg7LLKMsIScPHDM6VBiygfiKUF2dpEToIR5 /ZLWqRTRky91Wb73u30BM5EVMAqzjOXiXdYtY7rkK6nGYCKO/Ozy1T1RQd3JNoZekxCS oolUdArogfdyFIvYZz4ltYVmdPCCy4lkmlpQE= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:10:01 -0600 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Indan Zupancic Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Sage Weil , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, l@jasper.es Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system Message-ID: <20110312021001.GA16833@elie> References: <201103111255.44979.arnd@arndb.de> <20110311235607.GB15853@elie> <9446ab1a2315c0d2476c30f8315a0503.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9446ab1a2315c0d2476c30f8315a0503.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 31 Indan Zupancic wrote: > I'm not pushing for any official convention, just what seems good taste. In cases like this, conventions (consistency and best practices) are very important. > Less code added, less bloat. Architecture independent, no need to update > all system call tables everywhere (all archs, libc versions and strace). > Two files changed, instead of 7 (which only hooks up x86). Thanks for explaining. Those do seem like good reasons to use a ioctl instead of a new syscall. > In this case it's just a performance improvement over sync(2). It doesn't > add a new feature. Main argument given for the performance problem seems > to be "NFS can be slow". Anything else? Huh? It is not just the speed of the sync --- unnecessary writeback will cause wear on your thumbdrive, eat up your laptop battery, and kill I/O performance in other tasks running at the same time. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here at all. Would you say that fsync is superfluous, too? Jonathan -- 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/