Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753967Ab1CLDvK (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:51:10 -0500 Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl ([195.190.28.78]:55159 "EHLO smarthost1.greenhost.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752967Ab1CLDvG (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:51:06 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D7ADFDD.9080108@gmail.com> References: <201103111255.44979.arnd@arndb.de> <4D7AC0FE.8070806@gmail.com> <1d4d1b7ae64da97f44cad0e2bda4f832.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> <4D7ADFDD.9080108@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:50:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system From: "Indan Zupancic" To: "Ric Wheeler" Cc: "Arnd Bergmann" , "Sage Weil" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" , "Jonathan Nieder" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, l@jasper.es User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Scan-Signature: 938925967a2432a0d8c7279c30be63be Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1528 Lines: 36 On Sat, March 12, 2011 03:52, Ric Wheeler wrote: > Sage was pretty clear in stating the motivation which is the use case you > think is questionable. Probably not interesting for consumer devices, but > definitely extremely interesting in large servers with multiple file systems. Not really, he just said "It is frequently useful to sync a single file system", without giving any use cases. He then gave two situations where either sync or fsync isn't sufficient, to which I replied earlier and you called missing the point. But that's not the same as giving a use case. > > In fact, we do it today as mentioned earlier in the thread - this simply > exports that useful capability in a clean way. Did you use the remount trick or the ioctl? If the latter, is it sufficient for your need? If the first, would guaranteeing that mount -o remount,rw trick will keep working solve the problem for you? When or why would you want to sync one specific filesystem? As you're doing it, you could explain your use case better instead of telling me I'm missing the point. If sync(2) didn't exist and people wanted to add it I'd complain too. This has all the problems of sync(2), but with the "not sure if all the files are on the file system I think" problem added. Greetings, Indan -- 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/