From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Mar 3 01:12:34 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94178CF617F; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:12:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 593BF11EA; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:12:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id s186so153329348qkb.1; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:12:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=km7Wrgxixu9j+CrPOavgUmG/bBtPmAwk79VIygYKAzA=; b=SDs5lDLt9UOFm82UHD0fcQ20ZRK5Xp6q2OFdMwk3Yldlvku4LVwTto9MnyH+vyTBHh r4UaBHUvM8KDGudjAtjdC+06lXM8QDnTO4Jn5sQSEKI9DaSbjHFlXpkVCriiWFXIuOxz BYH56NH7vMWFO+z4X5c/XZ+5Fjnk2akwZ5Nb61dGdq/XqanRZXVhl91+lMZZpA44FvFZ h9VgsGHfCym2kS7JP0MLE9QhcAj2NCr90vxhDHVJR6OA0MDUkSwgHe7ddIjU9k2PbRV8 3Uat+uZ1lfP630JuvApsv7FCHgrhH5/DdQZJMKJxHEeHX4D93h2L3x5eGsUPHPENk9AG mSSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=km7Wrgxixu9j+CrPOavgUmG/bBtPmAwk79VIygYKAzA=; b=L6PYGwpu/LZpMUpuWZjlVyYe7tGvqMAKznddODwbJlp4iMgnjfr6jFUqTHcz34FeNG y6f6DbzCPNu/Q2ay6PIakJU1cjIKLRFhpzRMHcPISG49iCaN9oZ1HHg0hXjWeFJbPviY 7SOkfwf7jmlzscsCMmrgKBbA/wIKIz9/wiwFPX5r00qhwSCqdQ/aXTdkw9bzBmivBZI1 3LoutW93t0BFm1vFlij2MHcJqDQprHAuLx9HQqXrB52JwJsEHzmQ1roL4CVb3JDQXzZz wj+ZC0Moo43W/0bidUzmnctqilFWP1f2G9zVP5IF5W9/uROWJ93/zQz6LHAPYsJHRoJT VbBA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nGHGt4BJ/aCTpW788DUdIno+L7KVSdgraOfiQORMOb/hV7HFG+m/usHnkjroHWfXQIB929tYmMee+TTA== X-Received: by 10.55.18.158 with SMTP id 30mr153084qks.123.1488503553585; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:12:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.104.200 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:12:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201703030031.v230VvIl066398@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201703030031.v230VvIl066398@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> From: Ngie Cooper Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:12:33 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: effect of strip(1) on du(1) To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Subbsd , Peter Jeremy , freebsd-hackers , freebsd-current Current Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 01:12:34 -0000 On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Rodney W. Grimes 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