Andreas Dilger <adil...@dilger.ca> wrote:
> > POSIX does not require you to call fsync() before you are able to get the
> > expected result from stat()
> >
> > If POSIX did make such assumptions, it would document then. The fact that
> > there is no related text in POSIX is sufficient to prove what POSIX expects.
>
> I don't agree with your extrapolation at all. You're saying that everything
> POSIX doesn't document must be forbidden, which is a big stretch.
You seem to missinterpret me.
POSIX requires things to be documented in case there is unexpected behavior.
Returning st_blocks == 0 for a file with at least 512 bytes of data is such
unexpected behavior.
Returning a value for st_blocks, that changes with the phases of the moon while
the content of that file is not changed is another unexpected behavior.
BTW: I remember that Sun started with a similar inconsistent approach (for
statvfs() in this case) ~ 14 years ago, when efficiency for unlink() was
increaded by implementing a background unlink(). Sun failed to pass the POSIX
conformance tests with the first approach and had to change the implementation
to returm more expectable results.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
