Re: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:06:23AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >  - given that our current O_SYNC really is and always has been actuall
> >    Posix O_DSYNC
> 
> Are you sure about this?
> 
> >From http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1IZ01704 :
> 
>     Error description
> 
>        LINUX O_DIRECT/O_SYNC TAKES TOO MANY IOS

That is for GPFS, and out of tree filesystem with binary components.
It could be that they took linux O_SYNC for real O_SYNC.  Any filesystem
using the generic helpers in Linux has gotten the O_DSYNC semantics at
least as long as I have worked on Linux filesystems, which is getting
close to 10 years now.  I'll do some code archaelogy before we'll move
with this to be sure.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/