[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090113104522.GP30821@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:45:24 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: new barrier warnings in 2.6.29-rc1
On Tue, Jan 13 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jens.
>
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> I think the right thing to do is setting REQ_QUIET on the trial
> >> barrier request.
> >
> > It would surely work, but XFS doesn't really have a way to do that. Then
> > we would have to add a bio quiet flag and inherit that.
> >
> > I kind of liked the old behaviour. What about something like the below?
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index a824e49..eddba4a 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -1448,6 +1448,11 @@ static inline void __generic_make_request(struct bio *bio)
> > err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > goto end_io;
> > }
> > + if (bio_barrier(bio) && bio_has_data(bio) &&
> > + (q->next_ordered == QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE)) {
> > + err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + goto end_io;
> > + }
> >
> > ret = q->make_request_fn(q, bio);
> > } while (ret);
>
> I have no objection against it. I kind of like having single test
> point but it's a corner case anyway so no biggie.
I agree, but it's a lot better than having to fiddle around with every
spot that wants to do a barrier probe. I'll merge it up for 2.6.29.
Christoph, can you double check that it gets rid of your warning and
still catches the barrier disable?
--
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