From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 22 10:58:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2869D14F72 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 10:58:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA80382; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199908221758.KAA80382@apollo.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Maxim Sobolev , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sync(8) doesn't have any effect on softupdates-enabled filesystem References: <4136.935343278@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> structures used internally by softupdates are not condusive to doing a :> hard-sync. : :I gues sync needs to set a flag which makes the sync'er go through all :buckets with no delay and then wake the sync'ing process afterwards... : :-- :Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member It won't help. What needs to happen is for the VOP_FSYNC in ffs to figure out buffer<->buffer dependancies - something which is not being recorded in the structures currently. Kirk indicated to me in our discussions a few weeks ago that it would be relatively easy to figure out *some* of the dependancies and write the buffers out in the correct order, but not all of them. There are dependancies which are much more complex and not simply a matter of writing buffers out in any particular order. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message