News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Linux's fsync() woes are getting some attention by bodyfour on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @11:41AM (#7379900)
The two-write operation you propose is simpler, but you're losing a lot of generality. Specifically, think about:

  * I want to notify a network client that its write is done
  * When this write is done, I want to delete a temporary file 
etc
Re:Linux's fsync() woes are getting some attention by deathanatos on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @05:59PM (#7382475)
Good points — there's definitely a place for a write barrier. It may be that a simple write barrier, while not as efficient for this use case, might be generally more useful.

For your second point, if you take my initial "write B depends on the completion of write A", and extend it allow arbitrary kernel commands to depend on others, then you could still do that, (delete B depends on write A), however, things are probably too complex at this point, and a simple write barrier is better.