[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C73FD52.7000305@vlnb.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:11:46 +0400
From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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, jack@...e.cz,
rwheeler@...hat.com, hare@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with
sequenced flush
Tejun Heo, on 08/23/2010 04:14 PM wrote:
>> I think that's correct and changing the priority of DM_ENDIO_REQUEUE
>> for REQ_FLUSH down to the lowest should be fine.
>> (I didn't know that FLUSH failure implies data loss possibility.)
>
> At least on ATA, FLUSH failure implies that data is already lost, so
> the error can't be ignored or retried.
In SCSI there are conditions when a command, including FLUSH
(SYNC_CACHE), failed which don't imply lost data. For them the caller
expected to retry the failed command. Most common cases are Unit
Attentions and TASK QUEUE FULL status.
Vlad
--
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