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

On 08/28/2009 09:44 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> However, for userspace, there's an issue with applications which were
> compiled with an old libc and used O_SYNC.  Most of them probably
> expected O_SYNC behaviour but all they got was O_DSYNC, because Linux
> didn't do it right.

Right.  But these programs apparently can live with the broken semantics.
I don't worry too much about this.  If people really need the fixed O_SYNC
semantics then let them recompile their code.


> When using a newer kernel which actually implements O_SYNC behaviour,
> I'm thinking those applications which asked for O_SYNC should get it,
> even though they're still linked with an old libc.

In general yes, but it's too expensive.  Again, existing programs expect
the current behavior and can live with it.


> (Oh, and Ulrich: Why is there a "#define O_RSYNC O_SYNC" in the Glibc
> headers?  That doesn't make sense: O_RSYNC has nothing to do with
> writing.)

O_SYNC is a superset of O_RSYNC.  In the absence of a true O_RSYNC that's
the next best thing.  Of course I didn't know the Linux O_SYNC is really
O_DSYNC.  In that context the definition doesn't make sense.


> Although libc's __new_open() could have this:
>
>      /* Old kernels only look at O_DSYNC.  It's better than nothing. */
>      if (flags&  O_SYNC)
>          flags |= O_DSYNC;
>
> Imho, it's better to not do that, and instead have
>
>      #define O_SYNC          (O_DSYNC|__O_SYNC_KERNEL)

Why should it be better?  You're replacing something the compiler can do
with zero cost with active code.


Again, these O_* constant changes are sufficient.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA â-
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html