On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 01:01:25PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 12:01:35PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 11:54:24AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > >
> > > I have not implemented O_SYNC in NWFS, but it looks like I need to add it
> > > before posting the final patches. This patch appears to force write-through
> > > of only dirty inodes, and allow reads to continue from cache. Is this
> > > assumption correct
> > Yes: O_SYNC is not required to force reads to be made from disk.
> > SingleUnix has an "O_RSYNC" option which does that, but O_SYNC and
> > O_DSYNC don't imply that.
> Cool. ORACLE is going to **SMOKE** on EXT2 with this change.
Note that this is nothing new, linux (say 2.2.18pre23) always used the O_SYNC
semantics Stephen implemented in the 2.4.x O_SYNC showstopper bugfix.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:12 EST