Re: sync(3)

[Reini Urban <rurban at x-ray dot at>]

Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 05:32:51PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
> > Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:36:17AM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
> > > > Why is this a bad idea?
> > >
> > > It's a very limited implementation of what sync is supposed to do but
> > > maybe it's better than nothing.
> > >
> > > A slightly more robust method would be to implement an internal cygwin
> > > signal which could be sent to every cygwin process telling it to run
> > > code like the below.
> >
> > A signal looks better.
> > Maybe just to its master process, and all its subprocesses and threads?
>
> I don't know what you mean by the master process.  

the parent of some subprocesses.
exim or postgres or apache1 open a farm of subprocesses, which 
eventually might want to sync() logfiles or mboxes.

> It's easy to send signals to every cygwin process. You don't have to worry about threads.

good.

my private coverage:
  time find /usr/src -name \*.c -exec grep -H sync \{\} \;
so far is unsuccessful.
The examples I found (exim, postgresql, uw-imap) all use fsync() (of 
course). apache doesn't use fsync/sync (logs) at all.

But I didn't check the more likely candidates, perl/python/... or simple 
small servers yet.
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/