Steffen Daode Nurpmeso <sdao...@googlemail.com> added the comment:
Charles-Francois Natali wrote:
> I'm -10 on sync_file_range on Linux:
> [...] last time I checked [...]
I just looked at
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=fs/sync.c;h=c38ec163da6ccba00a0146c75606c1b548b31343;hb=HEAD
and it seems - as far as i understand what i read - that you're
still right; and, furthermore, that fsync() does everything
anyway. (But here an idiot is talking about *very* complicated
stuff.)
I've also "search"ed for the called filemap_write_and_wait_range()
and found the commit message for
2daea67e966dc0c42067ebea015ddac6834cef88 as part of that;
very interesting in respect to our issue here.
I will wait before i update the patch though, just in case some
experienced NetBSD or AIX user posts some message. For OpenBSD
i think i can confirm that fsync(2) alone is enough after taking
a (shallow, all shallow) look into kernel/vfs_syscalls.c and
ufs/ffs/{ffs_softdep.c,softdep.h}.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue11877>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
