Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<4078D6D8.5060407@att.net>
Date:	Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:25:44 -0400
From:	David Fritz <zeroxdf AT att DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: working sync() code
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

GARY VANSICKLE wrote:

> [snip]
> 
>>SUSv3 has this to say about sync():
>>
>><quote>
>>The sync() function shall cause all information in memory that updates
>>file
>>systems to be scheduled for writing out to all file systems.
>>
>>The writing, although scheduled, is not necessarily complete upon return
>>from
>>sync().
>></quote>
>>
> 
> "scheduled for writing out"?  Isn't that done at the time any
> file/filesystem calls are made?  Unless I'm missing something, that quote
> translates to, "sync() does nothing".

Or at least "sync() isn't guaranteed to do anything".  Yes, it's extremely 
vague.  I guess we could consider Cygwin's current implementation as conforming. 
   :) Which is consistent with Corinna's comments.

Cheers



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -