lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()
From
Date
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 00:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 07, 2015 04:38:26 PM Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > That is a tough nut. But that's not a reason to make it worse.
> > I'd say there's no reason not to use a secondary interface to
> > suspend without syncing or to extend or introduce such an interface
> > if the API is deficient.
>
> Well, the point here is that the sync we have doesn't prevent all potentially
> possible bad things from happening. It's a partial measure at best in that
> respect.

Well, removed hardware doesn't work. That is a very basic limitation.
But can we guarantee that any returned syscall actually wrote to disk?
Yes, but it must be done in kernel space. So doing a sync has a true
benefit.
I don't see why you would want to generally remove it. What is wrong
with an interface allowing a selection there to those who don't care
about additional guarantees?

Regards
Oliver




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-08 10:21    [W:0.156 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site