Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:17:15 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, nathan@rtfm.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: O_SYNC Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811092214440.27915-100000@janus.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <19981109190225.A22989@emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Nov 10), sthaug@nethelp.no said: > > > > Yes, however every other OS defines it at "O_SYNC" why are we different? > > > > or, if there is a reason, why isn't there a compatibility #define? Good point. Let's get this added as a compatibility define, since it seems to have already caused at least one person trouble, it will undoubtedly cause more. And hey, we're not doing anything with O_SYNC now, and the namespace is already heavily polluted... > > > > > > > > can someone check this on netbsd/open bsd/os ? is it bsd or us? > > > > > > NetBSD 1.3.2: > > > fcntl.h:92:#define O_SYNC 0x0080 /* synchronous writes */ > > > fcntl.h:127:#define FFSYNC O_SYNC /* kernel */ > > > fcntl.h:129:#define O_FSYNC O_SYNC /* compat */ > > > > BSD/OS 3.1 fcntl.h: > > > > #define O_FSYNC 0x0080 /* synchronous writes */ > > #define FFSYNC O_FSYNC /* kernel */ > > It's O_SYNC on Dec OSF/1, SCO Open Server, and SunOS too. > > -Dan Nelson > dnelson@emsphone.com Brian Feldman > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9811092214440.27915-100000>