bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Implement the sync libnetfs stubs.


From: Sergiu Ivanov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement the sync libnetfs stubs.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:40:50 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 05:04:07PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 08:57:46PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
>
> > The origianl patch is wrong and needs to be reverted, and a new one
> > comitted once all concerns actually have been addressed.
> 
> A follow-up patch has been published (but not yet installed) that makes
> netfs_attempt_sync behave as expected, and I think all of us three agree
> that this is correct.  I think that this follow-up patch should simply be
> installed on top of the one that is in the repository.  No need for
> reverting anything; for example, even though the patch in the repository
> is not totally correct, it already is an improvement as compared to the
> situation before.
> 
> Then, what indeed needs discussion is netfs_attempt_syncfs.  Instead of
> continuing to speculate, I began documenting the Hurd's RPCs.  Some of
> them are documented in the manual, some are in definition or header
> files, some can be second-guessed by looking though library sources that
> implement them, etc.  Look here (and contribute!):
> <http://www.bddebian.com/~hurd-web/hurd/interface/>.

This is great!  I've wanted something like this for so long a time!
:-)

> Especially, I added what I found for file_sync, file_syncfs, and
> fsys_syncfs.  And the thing is that I couldn't find a really clear
> example for the syncfs ones, about their exact modus operandi.  What
> one does find is that for some implementations they indeed foreward
> syncfs to all child servers, but I'm missing a rationale why this is
> better than syncing the root directory.  But, as the forwarding is
> the technique that is already being applied, I have no objections
> for changing unionfs' netfs_attempt_syncfs in this way -- Sergiu
> also already posted a patch to do that.  So, then I think all of us
> agree, correct?  I suggest: (1.) fix for netfs_attempt_sync is to be
> installed on top of the current master; (2.) change for
> netfs_attempt_syncfs is to be installed on top of that.

It's okay for me.  (Though my personal preferences are still with
reverting the existing commit.) 

Regards,
scolobb




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]