| |||||||||||||
JLS2009: A Btrfs updateJLS2009: A Btrfs updatePosted Nov 2, 2009 17:39 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)In reply to: JLS2009: A Btrfs update by nix Parent article: JLS2009: A Btrfs update
fsync() is expected to provide certain guarantees. The kernel shouldn't preempt that just because
it assumes it knows better than applications - the applications should either change behaviour themselves, or have an LD_PRELOADed library that makes fsync() behaviour conditional on battery state.
(Log in to post comments)
JLS2009: A Btrfs update Posted Nov 2, 2009 19:11 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Of course the kernel shouldn't make such assumptions by itself, but if the user configures it
intentionally to break fsync...
What difference does it make if it's implemented in the kernel or in an LD_PRELOAD library?
JLS2009: A Btrfs update Posted Nov 2, 2009 19:17 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
It lets you control it per-application.
|
|||||||||||||