On Wednesday 13 July 2011 15:43, Dennis Groenen wrote: > On 07/13/2011 03:13 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote: > > Specialized filesystems such as jffs2 or yaffs2 still can, however. > Good point, but a lot of, for example closed, embedded/mobile devices > require a lot of hacking around to get something custom (like a > different fs) running. > > Why shouldn't it be? Either you want to reduce the number of writes > > to the filesystem, or you don't. Delayed writing, which is configured > > at the filesystem layer, accomplishes this for every application without > > the need for patching. Applications can always fsync() when they need > > synchronous writes. > True, but generally those writes from other applications are going to > happen anyway. E.g. if I save a file in application X, it will need to > be written out, and be written out completely. For BusyBox's history, > this isn't the case. I don't see why a file has to be written out after > each appended line here. Vi doesn't write out a file after each new line > either, does it?
sh can crash. sh can be killed by a signal. sh can be run in parallel from two terminals, and saving at exit creates unfairness: whoever exits last overwrites the history of other guys. Nevertheless, I am not firmly against saving only on exit. Actually, I think that's the option you'd like. So, (1) it would largely solve your problem and (2) it would also be welcomed by people who like more bash-like behavior wrt history saving. Can you code up a patch which does this? -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
