[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C808BB8.6040005@ct.jp.nec.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:46:32 +0900
From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, jaxboe@...ionio.com,
j-nomura@...jp.nec.com, jamie@...reable.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 4/5] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support for request-based
dm
Hi Tejun,
On 09/02/2010 10:22 PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>>> @@ -2619,9 +2458,8 @@ int dm_suspend(struct mapped_device *md,
>>> up_write(&md->io_lock);
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * Request-based dm uses md->wq for barrier (dm_rq_barrier_work) which
>>> - * can be kicked until md->queue is stopped. So stop md->queue before
>>> - * flushing md->wq.
>>> + * Stop md->queue before flushing md->wq in case request-based
>>> + * dm defers requests to md->wq from md->queue.
>>> */
>>> if (dm_request_based(md))
>>> stop_queue(md->queue);
>>
>> Request-based dm doesn't use md->wq now, so you can just remove
>> the comment above.
>
> I sure can remove it but md->wq already has most stuff necessary to
> process deferred requests and when someone starts using it, having the
> comment there about the rather delicate ordering would definitely be
> helpful, so I suggest keeping the comment.
OK, makes sense.
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
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