Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Andrew Morton wrote:

Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:


Instead of
LINUX_FADV_ASYNC_WRITE
LINUX_FADV_WRITE_WAIT

can we have something more consistent? Perhaps
FADV_WRITE_ASYNC
FADV_WRITE_SYNC



Nope, I had a bit of a think about this and decided that the two operations
which we need are:




Do you need to introduce a completely new concept 'wait upon writeout'
though? Not to say they can't solve the problem but I don't think they
are any more expressive and they definitely depart from the norm which
has always been sync / async AFAIK.

It may be a very useful operation in kernel, but I think userspace either
wants to definitely know the data is on disk (WRITE_SYNC), or give a hint
to start writing (WRITE_ASYNC).

From a kernel implementation point of view, WRITE_SYNC may be doing
several things (start writeout, wait writeout), but from userspace it is
just a single logical operation.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux