[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100825001421.67eb8aad@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:14:21 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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
> 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.
ATA expects the command to be retried as well because a failed flush
indicates the specific sector is lost (unless the host still has a copy
of course - which is *very* likely although we don't use it) but the rest
of the flush transaction can be retried to continue to flush sectors
beyond the failed one.
Alan
--
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