Hi,
On 08 Feb 2011, Zabaluev Mikhail (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) wrote:
>> I would use fdatasync().
>
> What about ensuring that file metadata are synced as well (e.g. the
> file itself cannot be lost on the filesystem)?
Rémi already responded about fdatasync semantics, but I do
wonder a bit about direc
:04 PM
> > To: ofono@ofono.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] use fsync in storage
> >
> > On Tuesday 08 February 2011 13:47:51 ext Kai Vehmanen, you wrote:
> > > 3) Is it ok, build-wise, for ofono to require availability
> >
> > fdatasync()
> >
&g
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: ofono-boun...@ofono.org [mailto:ofono-boun...@ofono.org] On
> Behalf Of ext Rémi Denis-Courmont
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:04 PM
> To: ofono@ofono.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] use fsync in storage
>
> On Tuesday 08 Februa
On Tuesday 08 February 2011 13:47:51 ext Kai Vehmanen, you wrote:
> 3) Is it ok, build-wise, for ofono to require availability fdatasync()
>(which I think would be sufficient in this case and slightly
>less expensive).
I would use fdatasync(). It would be trivial to alias it to fsync() fro
Hi,
this is potentially a bit controversial, so sending as RFC.
Storage write_file() is used for SMS spooling (both in core for fragments and
in e.g. Marcel's history plugin patches). As we want to be sure we don't ack
SMS'es to network until we have succesfully stored them on device, I think we
