[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch lst de>
- To: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- Cc: "tytso mit edu" <tytso mit edu>, "linux-scsi vger kernel org" <linux-scsi vger kernel org>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe fusionio com>, "jack suse cz" <jack suse cz>, "linux-kernel vger kernel org" <linux-kernel vger kernel org>, "swhiteho redhat com" <swhiteho redhat com>, "linux-raid vger kernel org" <linux-raid vger kernel org>, "linux-ide vger kernel org" <linux-ide vger kernel org>, "dm-devel redhat com" <dm-devel redhat com>, "James Bottomley suse de" <James Bottomley suse de>, "konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp" <konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp>, "linux-fsdevel vger kernel org" <linux-fsdevel vger kernel org>, "vst vlnb net" <vst vlnb net>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler redhat com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch lst de>, "chris mason oracle com" <chris mason oracle com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:19:35 +0200
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:13:36PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yeah, that sounds reasonable. blk_queue_flush() can be called anytime
> without locking anyway, so it should be really easy to implement too.
I don't think we can simply call blk_queue_flush - we must ensure to
never set more bits than the device allows. We'll just need two
sets of flags in the request queue, with the sysfs file checking that
it never allows more flags than blk_queue_flush.
I'll prepare a patch for this on top of the current series.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]