On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 03:26:35PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
>> > This should be coded much more robustely for something which tracks >> > uptimes. >> >> Feel free to submit a patch... > > Well, you could notify upstream about it, maybe they have some ideas how > to handle it. Otherwise, adding an fsync(f) before the close(f) might > suffice (but might lead to performance problems if the update interval > is too small). Upstream (Radek Podgorny, as CC'd on previous email) is aware of the issue I think. fsync() is totally unacceptable for various reasons (performance impact, prevents hdd from spinning down, etc) HTH -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
