On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 00:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, July 07, 2015 04:38:26 PM Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > That is a tough nut. But that's not a reason to make it worse. > > I'd say there's no reason not to use a secondary interface to > > suspend without syncing or to extend or introduce such an interface > > if the API is deficient. > > Well, the point here is that the sync we have doesn't prevent all potentially > possible bad things from happening. It's a partial measure at best in that > respect.
Well, removed hardware doesn't work. That is a very basic limitation. But can we guarantee that any returned syscall actually wrote to disk? Yes, but it must be done in kernel space. So doing a sync has a true benefit. I don't see why you would want to generally remove it. What is wrong with an interface allowing a selection there to those who don't care about additional guarantees? Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/