linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] blktrace: treat flush as barrier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 31 May 2011 19:27:16 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blktrace: treat flush as barrier

2011-05-28 (토), 03:44 -0400, Christoph Hellwig:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:09:41AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > AFAIK FLUSH always precedes WRITE and then followed by FUA, so how about
> 
> Right now most do because that's how the old barriers worked, but it's
> going to change.  For $NEXT + 1 I have a patch that for will make
> xfs sends FUA without flushes in a lot of cases, and afaik some device
> mapper code already does now.
> 

OK, thanks for the explanation.

Btw, the point was it seems possible that we can use the 'F' for both
FLUSH and FUA if we distinguish them by their (relative) position in the
output. How do you think? Do you still prefer F/U flags?

Thanks.


-- 
Regards,
Namhyung Kim


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/