Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Indan Zupancic wrote:

> I'm not pushing for any official convention, just what seems good taste.

In cases like this, conventions (consistency and best practices) are
very important.

> Less code added, less bloat. Architecture independent, no need to update
> all system call tables everywhere (all archs, libc versions and strace).
> Two files changed, instead of 7 (which only hooks up x86).

Thanks for explaining.  Those do seem like good reasons to use a ioctl
instead of a new syscall.

> In this case it's just a performance improvement over sync(2). It doesn't
> add a new feature. Main argument given for the performance problem seems
> to be "NFS can be slow". Anything else?

Huh?  It is not just the speed of the sync --- unnecessary writeback
will cause wear on your thumbdrive, eat up your laptop battery, and
kill I/O performance in other tasks running at the same time.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here at all.  Would
you say that fsync is superfluous, too?

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