From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:16:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:16:28 -0400 Received: from pD951F41A.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.81.244.26]:63239 "EHLO emma1.emma.line.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:16:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 02:16:17 +0200 From: Matthias Andree To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext3-2.4-0.9.4 Message-ID: <20010731021617.B28253@emma1.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.19i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > Exactly what is wrong with doing fsync() on the > directory ? It's non-portable and a kludge. > Why do you want us to turn link() and rename() > into link_slowly() and rename_slowly() ? Opening up the directory requires lots of inode lookups which are unnecessary. > Why can't you use a simple wrapper function to > do this for you ? Because it's more inefficient than necessary and it bloats the application. -- Matthias Andree