[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110809190509.GA31927@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:05:09 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: block: properly handle flush/fua requests in
blk_insert_cloned_request
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 02:55:31PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
[..]
> > > + /*
> > > + * All FLUSH/FUA requests are expected to have gone through the
> > > + * flush machinary. If a request's cmd_flags doesn't match the
> > > + * flush_flags of the underlying request_queue it is a bug.
> > > + */
> > > + BUG_ON((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FLUSH) && !(q->flush_flags & REQ_FLUSH));
> > > + BUG_ON((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FUA) && !(q->flush_flags & REQ_FUA));
> > > +
> >
> > Actually this makes sense and is simple. :-) Is BUG_ON() too harsh, how
> > about WARN_ONCE() variants? To me system continues to work so warning
> > is probably good enough.
>
> Sure, WARN_ONCE() is fine by me.
>
> Seems Tejun wants a more involved fix though.
Fixing it properly doesn't hurt. Makes it more future proof. In fact I am
thinking what happens to blk_execute_rq() variants where one can prepare a
request and send it down. What if caller sets FLUSH/FUA flags there.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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