Hi Tobi, On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 05:34:12PM +0100, Tobi Oetiker wrote: > Today Sebastian Harl wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:15:02PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > yes dropping rrd_flush from the api is not a good idea, otoh it > > > does not acomplish anything sensible in the code, so I propose the > > > following: > > > > > > have rrdc_flush for the client flushing function > > > and turn rrd_flush into a no-op for backward compatibility > > > > I really hope, I do not sound too picky, but this would change the > > semantics of rrd_flush() which would be a backward incompatible change > > to the ABI as well (thus requiring a major soname version bump). > > > > Please note though, that removing the call to rrd_flush() in the holt- > > winter stuff is perfectly valid (as long as it does not break anything, > > of course ;-)). > > well the point is, that this function used to be fflush back in the > old days at some point it was changed to fsync, which is something > totally different (and wrong). Since fflush has no meaning in the > current way rrdtool writes data, the corrent translation of > rrd_flush would be a no-op, or what do you suggest ?
Oh sorry, I missed that. Then, of course, turning it into a no-op should be fine, since this is basically fixing the intended behavior. Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
