preece@uunet.uu.net (Scott E. Preece) (05/20/88)
From: <daveb@llama.rtech.uucp> > >I tend to think that O_SYNC is specifically intended for those folks > >who are explicitly willing to put up with the performance hit of 2 > >physical writes/call. > > OK, then you write the inode when the file size changes, and update the > mod/access time at close. Maybe you have O_SYNC work this way if an > additional (or alternative) option, say O_FASTSYNC was provided. ---------- Maybe the semantics should be separated, so that data can be written synchronously and control information asynchronously. I understand your problem and can see that many people would not care about the updating of the times; on the other hand, many people WOULD care, too. If, for instance, you had a data distribution daemon that only did its thing when it noticed that the file had changed, you would want to make sure that any change ended up in a mod time update. it may not be your problem, but it is somebody's problem. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana uucp: ihnp4!uiucuxc!urbsdc!preece arpa: preece@Gould.com