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

[Jamie Lokier]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> P.S. better naming suggestions for O_FULLSYNC welcome

O_FULLSYNC might get confused with MacOS X's F_FULLSYNC, which means
something else: fsync through hardware volatile write caches.

(Might we even want to provide O_FULLSYNC and O_FULLDATASYNC to mean
that, eventually?)

O_ISYNC is a bit misleading if we don't really offer "flush just the
inode state" by itself.

So it should at least start with underscores: __O_ISYNC.

How about __O_SYNC_NEW with

    #define O_SYNC     (O_DSYNC|__O_SYNC_NEW)

I think that tells people reading the headers a bit about what to
expect on older kernels too.

-- Jamie
--
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/