[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100816183317.GA28171@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:33:17 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: jaxboe@...ionio.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
hch@....de, James.Bottomley@...e.de, tytso@....edu,
chris.mason@...cle.com, swhiteho@...hat.com,
konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp, dm-devel@...hat.com, vst@...b.net,
jack@...e.cz, rwheeler@...hat.com, hare@...e.de, neilb@...e.de,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mst@...hat.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nle.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] virtio_blk: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:52:00PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nle.org>
>
> Remove now unused REQ_HARDBARRIER support and implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA
> support instead. A new feature flag VIRTIO_BLK_F_FUA is added to
> indicate the support for FUA.
I'm not sure it's worth it. The pure REQ_FLUSH path works not and is
well tested with kvm/qemu. We can still easily add a FUA bit, and
even a pre-flush bit if the protocol roundtrips matter in real life
benchmarking.
--
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