[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110126104734.GA23245@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:47:34 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
tytso@....edu, shli@...nel.org, neilb@...e.de,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz, snitzer@...hat.com,
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] ext4: Deprecate barrier= and nobarrier mount
options
Hello,
On Wed 26-01-11 10:36:32, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:23:29PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > As part of migrating the FLUSH/FUA knob to the block layer, remove the support
> > code for the barrier-related mount options and remove the conditionals around
> > flushes in favor of always issuing the flush. The block layer will handle
> > gracefully the situation where a FLUSH or FUA request is issued to a device
> > that doesn't support it. Modify the option parsing code to print a warning if
> > someone tries to use the old mount option.
> >
> > Note: The nobarrier bit in the default mount flags is now useless.
>
> The option is something which users are already quite familiar with.
> I think we'll just have to carry this around. What we can do, tho, is
> moving the actual control mechanism to block layer -
> ie. blkdev_skip_flush() or something like that which ignores flush
> requests for the current exclusive opener.
Ted should have a final word about this but I believe it's possible to
deprecate the mount options. Maybe with some transition period where
deprecation message is shown but the option actually still works. That
being said I'm not sure what we should do when someone has a disk with two
partitions and one partition is mounted with barriers and another one
without them - sure, one has to think hard to find a sane use case for this
(possibly if user does not care about data after a crash on one of the
partitions, in which case he should probably use nojournal mode) but it
should probably work.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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