| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070531190013.GD32105@kernel.dk> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:00:13 +0200 From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> To: Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com> Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, david@...g.hm, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Bader <Stefan.Bader@...ibm.com>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md. On Thu, May 31 2007, Phillip Susi wrote: > David Chinner wrote: > >That sounds like a good idea - we can leave the existing > >WRITE_BARRIER behaviour unchanged and introduce a new WRITE_ORDERED > >behaviour that only guarantees ordering. The filesystem can then > >choose which to use where appropriate.... > > So what if you want a synchronous write, but DON'T care about the order? > They need to be two completely different flags which you can choose > to combine, or use individually. If you have a use case for that, we can easily support it as well... Depending on the drive capabilities (FUA support or not), it may be nearly as slow as a "real" barrier write. -- Jens Axboe - 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