Mark Mielke wrote: > I think fsync() is absolutely necessary to be explicit in this > situation, because the application needs to assert that all data is > written *before* using rename to perform the atomic-change-in-place > effect. I think that anybody who thinks fsync() is unnecessary is > failing to see the principle that fsync() exists solely for the purpose > of guaranteeing this state, and that if you think fsync() should be > unnecessary here, you should also think fsync() should be unnecessary > anywhere else. Why have an fsync() at all? Why shouldn't all operations > be synchronous by nature? Change the specification to force all I/O > operations to be ordered that way no application developer will ever > have to be surprised or ever call a synchronization primitive again. Right?
fsync() was really broken on ext3. Now, all of a sudden it's "teh awesome!!!! FTW!!!" There's a reason people haven't been using it. It could take an obscene amount of time to complete depending on what you happened to be doing in elsewhere in the (multi-tasking, no less) OS. Stef _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list