- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:56:15 -0600
- Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx, l@xxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <ffafd3ccb3fd1be7c40348c9cee84aef.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1102171035220.13904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1103101125150.4190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <edfa4cf081249734807e582c14253fca.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201103111255.44979.arnd@xxxxxxxx> <ffafd3ccb3fd1be7c40348c9cee84aef.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Indan Zupancic wrote:
> If there still is a good reason to implement this, please don't add it
> as a new system call, but add it to sync_file_range(), as that seems
> the best place for odd file synchronisation operations.
I have no strong preference about how this is added (and in fact I'm
quite ignorant about the usual conventions), but:
- as a sysadmin, it really _would_ be nice to be able to say
"sync /usr" to sync /usr;
- the existing functionality of sync_file_range is about controlling
writeback behavior for files, not mounts.
So unless there is a shortage of syscall numbers or something, I find
the request to omit this or tack it onto sync_file_range odd. Could
you explain the benefit?
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Home]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Online Dating]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]