Subject: Re: VOP_FSYNC() interface change
To: Sean Witham <Sean.Witham@asa.co.uk>
From: Klaus Klein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/02/1998 12:33:19
Sean Witham <Sean.Witham@asa.co.uk> 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.