Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2009-08-06 Thread Jim Meyering
Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 04:00:20PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Olaf Hering wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> Can I expect you to adjust your patch to detect >> >> fsync and close failures? >> > >> > How should it handle the failures? >> > parted cant do

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2009-07-24 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 04:00:20PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > Olaf Hering wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Can I expect you to adjust your patch to detect > >> fsync and close failures? > > > > How should it handle the failures? > > parted cant do anything about the error in p

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2008-08-08 Thread Jim Meyering
Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: >> > >> >> I agree wholeheartedly that arch-specific #ifdefs are best >> >> avoided, but am a little leery of removing O_DIRECT altog

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2008-08-06 Thread Olaf Hering
On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: > Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: > > > >> I agree wholeheartedly that arch-specific #ifdefs are best > >> avoided, but am a little leery of removing O_DIRECT altogether. > >> However, I'm currently leaning towar

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2008-08-06 Thread Olaf Hering
On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly that arch-specific #ifdefs are best > avoided, but am a little leery of removing O_DIRECT altogether. > However, I'm currently leaning towards accepting this. > Has this change been tested much? Its a result of this bug, the patch is us

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2008-08-06 Thread Olaf Hering
On Tue, Aug 05, Soren Hansen wrote: > +#if defined(O_DIRECT) It is safe to drop the entire thing. ifarch like that, in generic code, asks for trouble. --- libparted/arch/linux.c |8 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) --- a/libparted/arch/linux.c +++ b/libparted/arch/l

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2008-08-06 Thread Jim Meyering
Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> I agree wholeheartedly that arch-specific #ifdefs are best >> avoided, but am a little leery of removing O_DIRECT altogether. >> However, I'm currently leaning towards accepting this. >> Has this change been tested m

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2008-08-06 Thread Jim Meyering
Soren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > diff -urNad parted-1.8.8.git.2008.03.24~/libparted/arch/linux.c > parted-1.8.8.git.2008.03.24/libparted/arch/linux.c Hi Soren, Thanks for the patch. It looks like this will sorted out soon. ___ bug-parted mail

Re: [parted-devel] [PATCH] Fall back to not using O_DIRECT

2008-08-06 Thread Jim Meyering
Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, Soren Hansen wrote: > >> +#if defined(O_DIRECT) > > It is safe to drop the entire thing. > ifarch like that, in generic code, asks for trouble. Hi Olaf, Thanks for the patch. I agree wholeheartedly that arch-specific #ifdefs are best avoid