[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 10/11] fs, block: propagate REQ_FLUSH/FUA interface to upper layers
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Jan Kara <jack suse cz>
- Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch infradead org>, tytso mit edu, linux-scsi vger kernel org, jaxboe fusionio com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, swhiteho redhat com, linux-raid vger kernel org, linux-ide vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, James Bottomley suse de, konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, vst vlnb net, rwheeler redhat com, hch lst de, chris mason oracle com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 10/11] fs, block: propagate REQ_FLUSH/FUA interface to upper layers
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:19:57 +0200
Hello, Jan.
On 08/12/2010 11:24 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 12-08-10 14:41:30, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Propagate deprecation of REQ_HARDBARRIER and new REQ_FLUSH/FUA
>> interface to upper layers.
>>
>> * WRITE_BARRIER is marked deprecated and WRITE_FLUSH, WRITE_FUA and
>> WRITE_FLUSH_FUA are added.
>>
>> * REQ_COMMON_MASK now includes REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA so that they are
>> copied from bio to request.
>>
>> * BH_Ordered is marked deprecated and BH_Flush and BH_FUA are added.
>
> Deprecating BH_Ordered is fine but I wouldn't introduce new BH flags for
> this. BH flags should be used for buffer state, not for encoding how the
> buffer should be written (there were actually bugs in the past because of
> this). Being able to set proper flags when calling submit_bh() in the rw
> parameter is enough.
Ah, okay, I was just trying to match the BH_Ordered usage but you're
saying just requiring submit_bh() users to specify appropriate REQ_*
(or WRITE_*) in @rw is okay, right? I'll drop the bh part then.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]