On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:53:59 +0300 "Anton Salikhmetov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, if msync() is called with MS_SYNC an explicit sync is > triggered, and Rik's suggestion would work. However, the POSIX > standard requires a call to msync() with MS_ASYNC to update the > st_ctime and st_mtime stamps too. No explicit sync of the inode data > is triggered in the current implementation of msync(). Hence Rik's > suggestion would fail to satisfy POSIX in the latter case. Since your patch is already changing msync(), has it occurred to you that your patch could change msync() to do the right thing? -- All rights reversed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
