2015-10-12 19:00 GMT+02:00 Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>:

>
> On 12 October 2015 at 17:49, Álvaro Jurado <elbingmiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> what ensures sha key is in fs.
>
>
> The reason many of us are a little sceptical about it being fsync as such
> preventing the data appearing
> is that if the git function that writes the key does a write or pwrite,
> the key will be in the file system on Plan 9: there's no need for an fsync
> just to get it there.
> In fact, in Linux there's no need for an fsync just to get it there: it
> only matters in the case of a crash.
>
> If the file system fails or you reset the machine, the intention of the
> fsync will be frustrated, but
> it shouldn't affect normal operation where no file server crash occurs.
>
> As it happens, a wstat that changes nothing can be interpreted by a file
> server to have a similar effect as fsync (see stat(5)).
>

Thus Plan9 HAS fsync! :-o
And it also has server-defined semantics! Very impressive!


Giacomo