On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:53:23PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > This can be either a "suspend with flush" OR the > > flush could have been issued prior to the suspend (and any decent database > > would have done that). > I'm somehow starting to think that "flush" suspend is not needed at all > and all suspends may be "noflush". Indeed - that was what my email was trying to say - 'decent database' is the one you describe, which waits properly, and the only reason for 'flush suspend' is backwards compatibility with our previous releases to support poorly-written software (which quite probably doesn't exist). Alasdair -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
