In <20000219125218.A25665@bolet.ens.fr> Thomas Pornin (pornin@bolet.ens.fr) wrote:
> In article <AJRYdhuyi0@khim.sch57.msk.ru> you write:
>> AFAIK change behaviour of VFS to store data to disk as far as data is
>> available AND guarantee that motor will be NEVER spin down if there
>> are exist dirty buffers will be also not trivial.
> Sorry for the probably dumb thing I am about to say, but isn't the
> "sync" mount option doing just what is required ?
More or less. Just two problems:
1. Sync will slow down everything significally (just what you want with
already slow devices).
2. It's not implemented (AFAIK) for FAT (do you seen lots of peoples who
did not use FAT disks?).
> Hum, well, not exactly in fact, since the write() call will not return until
> all data is written, but this difference with your semantic can be handled in
> software. Moreover, you really want to wait for data being written,
> since bad sectors are common on nowadays floppies and your program wants
> to be notified synchronously about the error.
Oh. Bad sectors is yet other issue :-) I've seen kernel KILLED by floppies
with bad sectors many times.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST