Re: Worse yet Re: Whoops! Re: [PATCH] Another semi-critical one... (was Re: towards 0.91 )

[Thierry Laronde]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:50:50AM -0800, address@hidden wrote:
> 
> "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > At Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:16:50 +0100,
> > Thierry Laronde wrote:
> > > My tests were made with 2.2.x... So it's not 2.4.x specific.
> > 
> > Really?! That's too bad!
> > 
> > > I have neither no time to really dive in the code to see what the hell's
> > > going on.
> > 
> > Ok. Any volunteers on this list?
> 
> Thierry, this Linux behavior being described disturbs the heck out of me
> so I just want to be clear:
> 
> Are you talking about tests with the loopback device?  Or do you know
> this problem is endemic with all device types.
> 
> The loopback device in Linux has some shortcuts in it (at least it did
> as of some time ago when I looked at it), so I could believe that "sync"
> didn't work quite correctly with it.

Since the aim was to create virtual disks, indeed, I only used the
loop device in Linux. But since you encountered the very same kind
of behavior, I made the assumption that the problem was at a more
"general" level in Linux, the way fs is handled via some cache strategy.

So, yes, for me : only on loop device [others untested].

Cheers,
-- 
Thierry Laronde (Alceste) <address@hidden>
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C