On Thursday 11 June 2009 12:54:47 Cathey, Jim wrote: > For what it's worth, once upon a time I used a system > where sync(1) had a -f <file> option whereupon it > would only sync the volume upon which the file lay. > I don't know if this system was alone in having such > an option, certainly back in the day there was a lot > of cross-pollination. That's not fsync, anyway, so > perhaps a separate applet is more appropriate. > > -- Jim
Why do you need a -f option? The normal sync takes no arguments (and ignores any it gets, the gnu version actually explicitly _says_ "sync: ignoring all arguments"). So just add the ability to list files on the command line, iterate through and do an fsync() on those or do a sync() if there aren't any. And then if you like, add fsync as a synonym. :) Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
