The entire point of transactions is to say "these operations are related to one another" by opening a transaction and performing multiple read/write actions which populate a data dependency map. Then the commit says that either the dependency map is satisfied and all writes are made, or no writes are made. Thus it would not be difficult to obtain the map from the application, but it is a huge expansion of scope for the filesystem abstraction.
However, as we were discussing further up the page, a write-barrier is really all that is needed for the intuitive crash-proof behavior desired by everything doing the "create a temp file; relink to real name". An awful lot of the discussion seems to conflate request ordering with synchronous disk operations, when all we really desire is ordering constraints to flow through the entire filesystem and block layer to the physical medium.
All people want is for the POSIX ordering semantics of "file content writes" preceding "file name linkage" to be preserved across crashes. It is OK if the crash drops cached data and forgets the link, or the data and link, but not the data while preserving the link.