Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753353Ab1EVJCm (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2011 05:02:42 -0400 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:45556 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751774Ab1EVJCh (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2011 05:02:37 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=viHesIntl3HfVmR9pXHQd3qTZQIvAFdZo605kb26xxxQCNyg4fdWwCGlPR9dqyMjsh qoYRnshMqNi3FHK8GDjYCSPHPriLez+ZLXFnaFJSoZIsQOJnTZj8qXBFa2n7wy9I1AjL sThbfuYGd+OUtgiDpxwAx9d+MdEQB+GQ9Bchw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: d.g.jansen@googlemail.com From: Dennis Jansen Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 11:01:57 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3mqmPq7j5W-KPRxETcrSiEZUlns Message-ID: Subject: Response Summary Re: [rfc] Ignore Fsync Calls in Laptop_Mode To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, tytso@mit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1477 Lines: 40 So just to summarize - correct me if I'm wrong: There is general opposition to the idea of disabling fsync: - whether automatically while in laptop mode or by user's choice, e.g. via a special setting - no matter what the fsync call would return - whether any error code or success -> at all and in any form or context in kernel space. The reason seems to be mainly: - data security (esp. destruction of existing data in case of ordering problems) - application compatibility (e.g. mailserver able to work according to standards) - misuse potential (users not knowing what they're doing and/or how) - "Changing a generic, widely used kernel option" There is a general distinction made between using laptop mode ("soft" increased data loss risk) and disabling fsync (not providing a guaranteed write when specificly asked for it). There is no agreement: - whether ordering guarantees would be an issue (in a "properly implemented filesystem"). There was no response to: - whether something like featherstick (http://lwn.net/Articles/354861/) would make sense (in kernel space) in this context. - flame war suggestions ;) The proposed solution is: - to implement this in user space. Thanks for everyone for their feedback! -- 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/