[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH, RFC 2/2] dm: support REQ_FLUSH directly
- From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>
- To: "Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura ce jp nec com>
- Cc: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda ct jp nec com>, Jan Kara <jack suse cz>, linux-scsi vger kernel org, jaxboe fusionio com, swhiteho redhat com, linux-raid vger kernel org, tj kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, James Bottomley suse de, konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, tytso mit edu, Christoph Hellwig <hch lst de>, chris mason oracle com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH, RFC 2/2] dm: support REQ_FLUSH directly
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:40:44 -0400
On Thu, Aug 26 2010 at 6:50pm -0400,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com> wrote:
> Once we have a need for using request-based DM for something other than
> multipath we can take a fresh look at implementing rq-based FLUSH+FUA.
>
> Mike
>
> p.s. I know how hard NEC worked on request-based DM's barrier support;
> so I'm not suggesting this lightly. For me it just seems like we're
> carrying complexity in DM that hasn't ever been required.
To be clear: the piece that I was saying wasn't required is the need to
for request-based DM to clone a FLUSH to send to multiple targets
(saying as much was just a confusing distraction.. please ignore that).
Anyway, my previous email's question still stands.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]