Re: fsync in glib/gio

[Mark Mielke <mark mark mielke cc>]

Morten Welinder wrote:
> This is crazy.
>
> People are actually advocating that thousands upon thousands of applications
> need to be changed.
>   

No. The crazy part is that people care so much at all. Nobody cared a 
year ago - why care today?

This isn't a *new* problem in any way.

The question as originally raised was whether glib/gio should do fsync() 
to be proper. Not whether to fix thousands of applications - whether to 
fix glib/gio. The answer is universally yes, even amongst the people who 
are calling the spec broken.

According to the spec, fsync() is proper. If glib/gio wants to use 
rename as atomic change-in-place, and have the best chance of passing 
the "pull the plug" test, glib/gio should do fsync() before close() and 
rename().

The debate should be over. Debating about other file systems and some 
theoretical change to the spec is quite pointless in gtk-devel-list. At 
best, it's a legitimate rant. At worst, it's an ignorant rant. In any 
case, it's a rant. Fix glib/gio for the rename atomic change-in-place 
case specifically. Everybody is happy from a glib/gio perspective. If 
"thousands of other applications" are still broken - who cares?

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark mielke cc>