[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DE4C4D7.9060107@fusionio.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:37:11 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blktrace: treat flush as barrier
On 2011-05-28 04:09, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 2011-05-27 (금), 16:27 -0400, Christoph Hellwig:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:17:09PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Agree on Christophs comments, we should not pretend they are the same
>>> (since they are not). Since flush is a request on its own, F works
>>> nicely. For FUA it's associated with a write, so F should work there too
>>> indicating Write Fua (and easily humanly parsed as that, or Write
>>> Flush). WU would look confusing.
>>
>> REQ_FLUSH can also be set on a write bio, it only gets split at the
>> request level. And even there we're at least pondering allowing it
>> to stay as part of the write for some paravirtualized storage protocols.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK FLUSH always precedes WRITE and then followed by FUA, so how about
> using the same F for both of them and distinguishing by position?
>
> - WRITE: W
> - WRITE_FLUSH: FW
> - WRITE_FUA: WF
> - WRITE_FLUSH_FUA: FWF
That looks fine. 'U' would be an illogical choice.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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