Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:12:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: O_SYNC Message-ID: <199604271912.PAA09603@hda.com> In-Reply-To: <199604270258.MAA07041@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Apr 27, 96 12:58:55 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >Isn't O_SYNC the POSIX way to do things? Why does FreeBSD have > >O_FSYNC, and why isn't it documented? > > POSIX.1 doesn't specify any way to sync files. Perhaps FreeBSD > has O_FSYNC as a compatibility hack, and it isn't documented because > it doesn't do anything. The new copy of POSIX.1 (P1003.1b-1993) adds O_DSYNC, O_RSYNC and O_SYNC in the open call. O_DSYNC versus O_SYNC permits data-only integrity versus full file info integrity (access stamps, etc). I haven't spent the time to puzzle out exactly what O_RSYNC means - that once you read it it better also be on the disk? There is a feature test macro "_POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO" that has to be defined for these to be present. Anyone working off a new spec better keep an eye out for the change bars- I didn't realize this was new until this mail. -- Temporarily via "hdalog@zipnet.net"... Peter Dufault Real-Time Machine Control and Simulation HD Associates, Inc. Voice: 508 433 6936 dufault@hda.com Fax: 508 433 5267
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604271912.PAA09603>