Has sense. Thanks Charles. Álvaro El 12/10/2015 19:03, "Charles Forsyth" <charles.fors...@gmail.com> escribió:
> > On 12 October 2015 at 17:49, Álvaro Jurado <elbingm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> what ensures sha key is in fs. > > > The reason many of us are a little sceptical about it being fsync as such > preventing the data appearing > is that if the git function that writes the key does a write or pwrite, > the key will be in the file system on Plan 9: there's no need for an fsync > just to get it there. > In fact, in Linux there's no need for an fsync just to get it there: it > only matters in the case of a crash. > > If the file system fails or you reset the machine, the intention of the > fsync will be frustrated, but > it shouldn't affect normal operation where no file server crash occurs. > > As it happens, a wstat that changes nothing can be interpreted by a file > server to have a similar effect as fsync (see stat(5)). >
