This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 23, 2023. It is now read-only.
Fix FileStream.FlushAsync() to behave like Flush() #24902
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true).
stephentoub
added a commit
to stephentoub/dotnet-api-docs
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2019
jkotas
approved these changes
May 31, 2019
|
Great. Thanks. |
rpetrusha
pushed a commit
to dotnet/dotnet-api-docs
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2019
Dotnet-GitSync-Bot
pushed a commit
to Dotnet-GitSync-Bot/corert
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2019
) Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true). Signed-off-by: dotnet-bot <dotnet-bot@microsoft.com>
Dotnet-GitSync-Bot
pushed a commit
to Dotnet-GitSync-Bot/mono
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2019
) Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true). Signed-off-by: dotnet-bot <dotnet-bot@microsoft.com>
marek-safar
pushed a commit
to mono/mono
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2019
) Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true). Signed-off-by: dotnet-bot <dotnet-bot@microsoft.com>
jkotas
pushed a commit
to dotnet/corert
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2019
) Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true). Signed-off-by: dotnet-bot <dotnet-bot@microsoft.com>
Dotnet-GitSync-Bot
pushed a commit
to Dotnet-GitSync-Bot/corefx
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 7, 2019
) Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true). Signed-off-by: dotnet-bot <dotnet-bot@microsoft.com>
stephentoub
added a commit
to dotnet/corefx
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 7, 2019
) Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true). Signed-off-by: dotnet-bot <dotnet-bot@microsoft.com>
picenka21
pushed a commit
to picenka21/runtime
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2022
) Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers. But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush(), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.) This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true). Commit migrated from dotnet/coreclr@436debb
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Flush() behaves like Flush(false) and writes out any buffered data but doesn't P/Invoke to FlushFileBuffers/FSync to flush the OS buffers.
But whereas FlushAsync() is supposed to just be an async equivalent of Flush() (that's what every consumer of a Stream expects), it's actually behaving like Flush(true). This makes FlushAsync() inconsistent and much more expensive. (This is separate from FlushAsync not actually being async, which is an impactful problem to be solved separately.)
This changes FlushAsync to behave like Flush()/Flush(false) rather than Flush(true). If someone wants the FlushFileBuffers/FSync behavior, they can call Flush(true).
@JeremyKuhne, @jkotas, are you ok with this?