Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] close(): stop exposing non-retryable EINTR

[Florian Weimer]

* Andy Lutomirski:

> I think I mostly agree with your analysis except that I really don't
> like the ENOSPC.  The kernel actually has the ability to commit to
> having space for pending writes on an fd *without syncing*, then I
> think that capability should be expose to userspace.  fsync is a
> pretty poor alternative for code that just wants to make sure that, in
> the absence of a bug, crash or physical failure, the data won't be
> lost.

It's something we might want to call from fflush.

As a replacement, dup3/close doesn't quite work because it releases
POSIX advisory locks on the original descriptor (as they are per
process, not per descriptor).

Thanks,
Florian