[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ? disk writes actually done or still just in the cache ?
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: ? disk writes actually done or still just in the cache ?
- From: William M. York <York@CHUCK-JONES.west.dialnet.ila.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 20:51-0700
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: The message of 18 Jun 1992 08:30 PDT from Bill St. Clair <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 08:30 PDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill St. Clair)
>Yes, FlushVol is the call you want. The problem exists even in System 6 with
>the cache off, because there is a track cache anyway. This is documented in
In 2.0b1p3 and later, FORCE-OUTPUT on an output file stream calls
#_FlushFile. CLOSE calls #_FlushVol. The Inside Macintosh documentation
for #_FlushFile says that "Some information stored on the volume won't
be correct until PBFlushVol is called." Seems to me that FORCE-OUTPUT
should do #_FlushFile, which it already does (in 2.0b1p3. 2.0b1 without
patch 3 tried to do #_FlushVol, but neglected to put the volume number
in the right place), and FINISH-OUTPUT should do #_FlushVol.
Gee, my interpretation is the FORCE-OUTPUT and FINISH-OUTPUT should do
the same amount of output flushing. The difference is that
FINISH-OUTPUT should wait until the data is actually flushed out (if
possible) before returning, while FORCE-OUTPUT is allowed to "queue" a
flush request and return immediatly. I don't think that FINISH-
should do a "harder" flush than FORCE-.