[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110123103133.GC23121@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:31:33 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, tytso@....edu, djwong@...ibm.com, shli@...nel.org,
neilb@...e.de, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kmannth@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, rwheeler@...hat.com, hch@....de,
josef@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: reimplement FLUSH/FUA to support merge
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:49:55PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > + * If the device doesn't have writeback cache, FLUSH and FUA don't make any
> > + * difference. The requests are either completed immediately if there's no
> > + * data or executed as normal requests otherwise.
>
> For devices without a writeback cache, I'm not seeing where pure flushes
> are completed immediately. But I do see where data is processed
> directly in blk_insert_flush().
Yeah, it does. Pure flushes on a device w/o writeback cache, @policy
is zero and blk_flush_complete_seq() will directly proceed to
REQ_FSEQ_DONE.
> > -struct request *blk_do_flush(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> > +/**
> > + * blk_abort_flush - @q is being aborted, abort flush requests
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Small comment nit, s/blk_abort_flush/blk_abort_flushes/
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