From: Jim Rees Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:41:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20081030134118.GA31598@citi.umich.edu> References: <20081029031645.GE4985@disturbed> <20081029091203.GA32545@infradead.org> <20081029092143.GA5953@wotan.suse.de> <20081029094417.GA21824@infradead.org> <20081029103029.GC5953@wotan.suse.de> <20081029122234.GE846@shareable.org> <490865E3.8070102@gmail.com> <1225292196.6448.263.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20081030021601.GF18041@wotan.suse.de> <4909ADE0.1060205@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Piggin , Chris Mason , Ric Wheeler , Jamie Lokier , Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: jim owens Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4909ADE0.1060205@hp.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: jim owens wrote: AFAIK the fsync semantic comes from the days of dinosaurs, mainframes, and minicomputers... when a lot of operating systems had user-space libraries that buffered the I/O. On fsync(fd), the "fd2" data would still be in user-space. User space buffering happens in stdio, which is above the system call level. It's been that way since fsync() was first introduced, and is still that way today.