> I really makes no sense at all to > have munmap(2) not imply msync(3C).
Why not? munmap(2) does basically the equivalent of write(2). In the case of write, that is: a later read from the same location will see the written data, unless another write happens in-between. If power goes down following the write, all bets are off. And translated to munmap: a subsequent call to mmap(2) that makes the previously munmap-ped region available will make visible everything stored to the region prior to the munmap call. If power goes down following the munmap, all bets are off. In both cases, if you want your data to persist across power losses, use sync -- fsync or msync. If only the syncing variants were available, disk accesses would be significantly slower, and disks would thrash rather audibly all the time. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
