On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:51:15PM +0100, andrew.kuchling wrote:
Author: andrew.kuchling
Date: Thu Nov 9 14:51:14 2006
New Revision: 52692
[Patch #1514544 by David Watson] use fsync() to ensure data is really on disk
Should I backport this change to 2.5.1? Con: The patch adds two new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 9, 2006, at 9:01 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
Should I backport this change to 2.5.1? Con: The patch adds two new
internal functions, _sync_flush() and _sync_close(), so it's an
internal API change. Pro: it's a patch that should reduce
On Friday 10 November 2006 01:01, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:51:15PM +0100, andrew.kuchling wrote:
Author: andrew.kuchling
Date: Thu Nov 9 14:51:14 2006
New Revision: 52692
[Patch #1514544 by David Watson] use fsync() to ensure data is really on
disk
Should I
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:56:25AM +1100, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Looking at the patch, the functions are pretty clearly internal
implementation
details. I'm happy for it to go into release25-maint (particularly because
the consequences of the bug are so dire).
OK, I'll backport it; thanks!
On Friday 10 November 2006 13:45, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
OK, I'll backport it; thanks!
(It's not fixing a frequent data-loss problem -- the patch just
assures that when flush() or close() returns, data is more likely to
have been written to disk and be safe after a subsequent system
crash.)
