Maximilian Lorlacks wrote: > This looks okay to me. > > (plus two months ping)
oh, good news, committed two months ago. sorry, forgot to reply. > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:19 PM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: > > > Oh, right, I reworded it slightly, but I think this is something we should > > note. > > > > Index: fsync.2 > > > > ================================================================================================= > > > > RCS file: /home/cvs/src/lib/libc/sys/fsync.2,v > > retrieving revision 1.14 > > diff -u -p -r1.14 fsync.2 > > --- fsync.2 10 Sep 2015 17:55:21 -0000 1.14 > > +++ fsync.2 16 Apr 2019 20:18:03 -0000 > > @@ -66,6 +66,16 @@ and > > .Fn fdatasync > > should be used by programs that require a file to be in a known state, > > for example, in building a simple transaction facility. > > +.Pp > > +If > > +.Fn fsync > > +or > > +.Fn fdatasync > > +fails with > > +.Er EIO , > > +the state of the on-disk data may have been only partially written. > > +To guard against potential inconsistency, future calls will continue > > failing > > +until all references to the file are closed. > > .Sh RETURN VALUES > > .Rv -std fsync fdatasync > > .Sh ERRORS > >
