Code review comment for lp:~jameinel/bzr/2.4-fdatasync-ENOTSUP-1075108

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/6/2012 1:59 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> I like being cautious, but I also like not preventing someone
>> from actually getting their work done until we manage to add one
>> more error code into an exception clause.
>
> My point was more about a valid fdatasync() error that would reveal
> a data loss and will be ignored with your patch.
>
>

Sure, if you can come up with an fdatasync() error code that is
clearly a data loss then I'm happy to exclude that one, and even work
harder on whitelisting. But if we get EACCESS, or EAGAIN, or EINTR, or
ENOTSUP, or ... we can just ignore the request as we weren't doing it
in the past either.
We log it in the case we need to do a retrospective. I certainly agree
that people won't see it from the beginning.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCY4nkACgkQJdeBCYSNAAOEogCgzzY5hQE/jcFKfrbyWUtl0SbS
ynEAn0Fgn3aL0MObohHo+yjl6Jrn4+bq
=yCpc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----