Subject: Re: VOP_FSYNC() interface change
To: Sean Witham <>
From: Klaus Klein <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/02/1998 12:33:19
Sean Witham <> writes:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Klaus Klein wrote:
> >     * define two flags which can be bitwise inclusive-or'ed into this
> >       argument:
> > 
> >       - FSYNC_WAIT, which specifies synchronous operation; if not set,
> >         operation will be asynchronous,
> > 
> >       - FSYNC_DATAONLY, which is a hint: if possible, enforce data
> >         integrity completition only.  If it's not feasible for a file
> >         store implementation to omit file status synchronization when
> >         synchronizing file data, this is ignored.
> > 
> I presume you mean that if it can't do DATAONLY as requested it will
> default to WAIT to ensure data integrity.

Actually, using the wording `enforce data integrity completition' was
bogus.  What I really meant to express was `synchronize file data'
instead of the former.  This primitive isn't meant to make guarantees
about the completition of I/O unless synchronous operation has been
requested explicitly.  So, no, the situation you've outlined will
*not* cause synchronous operation.