Re: [PATCH 18/16] implement posix O_SYNC and O_DSYNC semantics
From: Christoph Hellwig
Date: Thu Sep 10 2009 - 19:18:46 EST
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:07:55AM +0200, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> + * Note: __O_SYNC must never be used directly.
>
>
Doesn't it make sense that applications that actually know what they are
>
doing may want to start using __O_SYNC directly at some point in the
>
future? It makes sense to code the kernel to handle both of these flags
>
appropriately (i.e. if __O_SYNC is set, but O_DSYNC is not then treat
>
this as the proper "O_SYNC").
What would be the benefit of that? Setting two bits vs one in a data
structure is not going to make any difference, and the way it's done in
this patch is actually much easier to implement in the kernel.
>
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/alpha/include/asm/fcntl.h
>
> ===================================================================
>
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/alpha/include/asm/fcntl.h 2009年09月10日 16:31:47.720004025 -0300
>
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/alpha/include/asm/fcntl.h 2009年09月10日 16:33:55.087294444 -0300
>
> #define O_CLOEXEC 010000000 /* set close_on_exec */
>
> +#define __O_SYNC 010000000
>
>
These two flags have the same value...
Thanks, corrected.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/