Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:07:05 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc:	DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: A call to `sync' inside `spawn'
In-Reply-To:	<199807271748.TAA29763@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980728110639.4133N-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> And sync on my machine (Linux) doesn't take several seconds. Less than
> one, actually, and it's not idle.

One second is also a lot.  You don't want to waste that much on each
fork/exec, do you?

> Eh! Of course you can distinguish between read and write cache. It's
> rather necessary to do so: you have to flush the write buffers if
> you're rebooting. Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant?

What I meant is that the cache doesn't maintain separate ``read'' and
``write'' buffers, AFAIK.  It maintains them in a single pool.  Which
is a sensible thing to do, since a buffer that was read could be
written to after that.

> How about "smartdrv/s"?

You mean `smartdrv /c', right?  (/s only shows the status, IIRC.)

AFAIK, /c does the same as our `_flush_disk_cache' does.  And the
problem is not to find a way to do this with SmartDrv, it's how to do
it with *any* type of cache.

- Raw text -