[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C6D0021.4040601@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:57:53 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
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,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with
sequenced flush
Hello,
On 08/18/2010 11:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> FYI: One issue with this series is that make_request based drivers
> not have to access all REQ_FLUSH and REQ_FUA requests. We'll either
> need to add handling to empty REQ_FLUSH requests to all of them or
> figure out a way to prevent them getting sent. That is assuming they'll
> simply ignore REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA on normal writes.
Can you be a bit more specific? In most cases, request based drivers
should be fine. They sit behind the front most request_queue which
would discompose REQ_FLUSH/FUAs into appropriate command sequence.
For the request based drivers, it's not different from the original
REQ_HARDBARRIER mechanism, it'll just see flushes and optionally FUA
writes.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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