Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()

[Oliver Neukum]

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 00:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 07, 2015 04:38:26 PM Oliver Neukum wrote:
>  
> > That is a tough nut. But that's not a reason to make it worse.
> > I'd say there's no reason not to use a secondary interface to
> > suspend without syncing or to extend or introduce such an interface
> > if the API is deficient.
> 
> Well, the point here is that the sync we have doesn't prevent all potentially
> possible bad things from happening.  It's a partial measure at best in that
> respect.

Well, removed hardware doesn't work. That is a very basic limitation.
But can we guarantee that any returned syscall actually wrote to disk?
Yes, but it must be done in kernel space. So doing a sync has a true
benefit.
I don't see why you would want to generally remove it. What is wrong
with an interface allowing a selection there to those who don't care
about additional guarantees?

	Regards
		Oliver


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/