On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 07:53:45AM +0200, Oleksii Shevchuk wrote: > > > > + if (! (f->writable && f->fd >= 0)) > > > > + return -1; > > > -1 means EPERM. Something different is needed. > > > > EINVAL/EBUSY/EFAULT ? > At least if !f->writable then the return code should be 0.
At last variant of patch header is checked first for STATE_ONLINE. I think the state ro+ONLINE is incorrect, is it? > I think that this is the same thing as with fixed times: if you set > the interval to 100000 msgs, you get a random sync every few days, > which is useless. If you set it low, than you limit the throughput. > I think that the msg-based limit doesn't make much sense. I think there should be the way to set syncing with lowest possible timeouts for debugging random hangs or so. If you think that this approach useless, I can remove msg counter at all _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
