[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161027063717.GA1165@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:37:17 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
jack@...e.cz, kernel@...ivas.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] block: add WRITE_BG
> * non-volatile media on completion.
> + * WRITE_BG Background write. This is for background activity like
> + * the periodic flush and background threshold writeback
> *
> */
> #define RW_MASK REQ_OP_WRITE
> @@ -202,6 +204,7 @@ typedef int (dio_iodone_t)(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
> #define WRITE_FLUSH (REQ_SYNC | REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_PREFLUSH)
> #define WRITE_FUA (REQ_SYNC | REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_FUA)
> #define WRITE_FLUSH_FUA (REQ_SYNC | REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA)
> +#define WRITE_BG (REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_BG)
I've been trying to kill off these WRITE_ flags as they aren't exactly
helpful, see my branch here that I'm waiting for the previous serious to
go in:
http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/block.git/shortlog/refs/heads/block-flags
Which also begs the question why you add the REQ_NOIDLE flag above, as
it's only applied to synchronous queues in cfq as far as I can tell.
And while I'm at nitpicking about the most trivial patch of the
series anyway: any good reason to not just spell out the "BACKGROUND" ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists