On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:55:12AM +1000, Stewart Smith wrote:
> Thomas Preud'homme writes:
> > And here is a proposed patch although I'm sure you don't need it :)
>
> I think we'll actually need the cancellation points before we check if
> eatmydata is hungry, so I'm actually going to do somethi
Thomas Preud'homme writes:
> And here is a proposed patch although I'm sure you don't need it :)
I think we'll actually need the cancellation points before we check if
eatmydata is hungry, so I'm actually going to do something slightly
different than this.
> --- libeatmydata-26/debian/changelog
Le vendredi 28 juin 2013 02:21:00, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
> Le vendredi 28 juin 2013 00:35:48, Stewart Smith a écrit :
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm the upstream eatmydata maintainer.
> >
> > The aim of libeatmydata is to behave exactly the same but instead have a
> > zero time fsync (and friends). S
Le vendredi 28 juin 2013 00:35:48, Stewart Smith a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> I'm the upstream eatmydata maintainer.
>
> The aim of libeatmydata is to behave exactly the same but instead have a
> zero time fsync (and friends). So, if fsync(), msync() and fdatasync()
> are meant to be cancellation points a
Hi!
I'm the upstream eatmydata maintainer.
The aim of libeatmydata is to behave exactly the same but instead have a
zero time fsync (and friends). So, if fsync(), msync() and fdatasync()
are meant to be cancellation points and I can simulate that in eatmydata
with calling pthread_testcancel(), I'
5 matches
Mail list logo
