Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably the first step towards this goal would be to look at how to have cp,
> mv, etc all take advantage of copying to a temporary file that would be
> synchronised with fsync() before being renamed. Also it would be good to
> have an option to call fs
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 23:39, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's probably going overboard, but some application might
> even want to call fsync on each containing directory.
I expect that the overhead of calling fsync on the directory is negligible
compared to the overhead of calli
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would be a good feature to have, it's a pity that the internal copy()
> function in coreutils doesn't support this.
>
> Probably the first step towards this goal would be to look at how to have cp,
> mv, etc all take advantage of copying to a temporar
This would be a good feature to have, it's a pity that the internal copy()
function in coreutils doesn't support this.
Probably the first step towards this goal would be to look at how to have cp,
mv, etc all take advantage of copying to a temporary file that would be
synchronised with fsync()
4 matches
Mail list logo
