At 02:54 03/08/2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>On Friday 03 August 2001 01:55, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > To summarize: basically you want the directory to be synced inside
> > the fsync() of the filedescriptor (with the advantage of being able
> > to optimize the directory sync to be a partial directory sync), while
> > others want you to explicitly sync the directory filedescriptor
> > afterwards.
>
>He wants to be able to set a bit on the directory that specifies such
>behaviour for all files in the directory. I don't see what's wrong
>with that.
Me neither. With regards to the parallel discussion on SUS compliance it is
probably a good idea to have such a thing in some form anyway (although if
I understood the discussion correctly, we really want this to happen by
default, not just when some flag is set but then again I never read the
standards...).
Best regards,
Anton
-- "Nothing succeeds like success." - Alexandre Dumas -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:00:26 EST