lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> 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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-10 13:45    [W:0.277 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site