Messages in this thread | | | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: imapd and synchronous writes | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:40:17 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> What other option do we application developers have? Until Linux came > along, directory updates had always been committed before the call > returned. There are no facilities provided to applications to let > them specify that a directory update needs to be committed to disk.
Not true. If you have any modern disk controller that re-orders writes from its internal cache then you potentially lose. There are file systems other than the Linux one that do async writes and will have the same properties.
> "Sorry, you're just screwed" is not an acceptable answer.
Thats a reasonable argument.
> "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes: > > Actually, there is, but it's not portable. If you open the directory > > using open, and then call fsync on the resulting file descriptor, you > > will forcibly commit the directory change. This is *not* guaranteed to > > work on all POSIX systems, and indeed it may not work on many. But it > > will work under Linux. > > How is an application, written to compile on a broad range of unix > systems, to know it has to take this particular set of steps?
Add it to gnu autoconf
| |