Francesco Biscani writes:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2005 01:45, David Masover wrote:
> > I got sick of waiting for it and nuked the fsync call. All my kernels
> > have a custom patch such that sys_fsync just returns true, no matter what.
>
> Mhh.. would it be something like this?
>
> --- buffer.c.old 2005-11-16 02:36:46.129829994 +0100
> +++ buffer.c 2005-11-16 02:37:11.125079752 +0100
> @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@
>
> asmlinkage long sys_fsync(unsigned int fd)
> {
> - return do_fsync(fd, 0);
> + return 1;
> }
>
> What are the implications of doing something like this? Is "sync" going to
One implication is following:
1 application like fetchmail downloads a mail message from the server
2 saves message in the mailbox
3 fsyncs the mailbox (which is a no-op in our case)
4 sends notification to the server, which deletes message
5 crash occurs (transaction made on the step 2 is not yet committed to
the disk)
6 after reboot mailbox is restored to the state it had before step 2
7 message is lost.
> stop working or isn't it using this function?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francesco
Nikita.
