On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 10:38 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2009-03-24 10:30:52, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 10:01 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > It seems wrong to work around broken file-systems on the application > > > > > level. That only takes away pressure from the file-system developers > > > > > to > > > > > address the problem properly. > > > > > > > > I don't disagree, but on the other hand. Users are losing data as we > > > > speak. (See above ubuntu bug report) > > > > > > It got fixed in ext4... > > > > Yes, but not in e.g. XFS. > > Well, given enough pressure, I'm sure XFS can be fixed too. (And then > it can perhaps gain its "reliable filesystem" badge).
Even if it is fixed there would be other filesystems like that flash filesystem that nokia uses that do the same thing. > > > > One compromise we could make it to only fsync in the case we're actually > > > > overwriting an existing file. This would mean that we don't risk > > > > loosing > > > > > > You should fsync just before doing rename, preferably in some special > > > way so that we can tell it apart from 'normal' fsync. > > > > This is what I mean of course. And there is no such "special way" > > infortunately. > > One proposal was to create "replace()" call (doing proper replacement > of one file with another). It could start up as "fsync(); rename()" > initially, but it should slowly move up into glibc and kernel, and do > the right thing. I proposed something similar, and i've seen multiple other proposals too. However, I belive it when i can call it on a released distro. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
