>...the person you're accusing of intentionally omitting part of a quote already quoted that very text in their previous comment: That was edited back in after

>...the person you're accusing of intentionally omitting part of a quote already quoted that very text in their previous comment: That was edited back in after I made my comment (this is admitted to by OP themselves). To the extent that I make an accusation it's that it's absurd to think you can dismiss the wealth of information on this subject and come to a remotely comprehensive understanding of how to implement reliable IO functions by simply reading a couple of sentences of the POSIX spec and dismiss the numerous other sources that go into very fine detail on this subject. This is not a subject you just read a few sentences on and then make bold claims about how Linux doesn't implement fsync properly, implying that the experts who have gone to great lengths to implement fsync on Linux just don't understand it; that all the papers on this subject, the numerous mailing list posts, the very submission itself, can all readily be dismissed as a simple failure to read what is as clear as day as if none of the people discussing this issue have ever bothered to read the spec.