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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:31:47 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, KudOS <kudos@...ts.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: block_device usage and incorrect block writes On Jan 18 2007 13:13, Jens Axboe wrote: > >noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the >order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee >that the device will process them in the order in which they are >dispatched. noop being FIFO basically means that it will not sort >requests. You can still have reordering if one request gets merged with >another, for instance. Would it make sense to have a fifo-iosched module that assumes write barriers between every submission? (No, I am not related to that project.) -`J' -- - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists