Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:12:33 -0800
From:      Ngie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>
To:        "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>
Cc:        Subbsd <subbsd@gmail.com>, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>,  freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>,  freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: effect of strip(1) on du(1)
Message-ID:  <CAGHfRMCVQdD4uULOPZsNxrrEZ%2BNAtJ6f1qMdSc8xtCHmwEfYMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201703030031.v230VvIl066398@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
References:  <CAFt_eMom-C68Fo4NR8HVqPBUwKTKYUvCy2seXDg3hzOOU_f=Vw@mail.gmail.com> <201703030031.v230VvIl066398@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Rodney W. Grimes
<freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
...
> Even if that is the case file system cache effects should NOT be
> visible to a userland process.   This is NOT as if your running
> 2 different processing beating on a file.  Your test cases are
> serialially syncronous shell invoked commands seperated with
> && the results should be exact and predictable.
>
> When strip returns the operation from the userland perspecive
> is completed and any and all processeses started after that
> should have the view of the completed strip command.
>
> This IS a bug.

Would the same statement necessarily apply if the filesystem was
writing things asynchronously to the backing storage?
Thanks,
-Ngie



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGHfRMCVQdD4uULOPZsNxrrEZ%2BNAtJ6f1qMdSc8xtCHmwEfYMg>