Hello, On 08/16/2010 08:33 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:52:00PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: >> From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Remove now unused REQ_HARDBARRIER support and implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA >> support instead. A new feature flag VIRTIO_BLK_F_FUA is added to >> indicate the support for FUA. > > I'm not sure it's worth it. The pure REQ_FLUSH path works not and is > well tested with kvm/qemu. We can still easily add a FUA bit, and > even a pre-flush bit if the protocol roundtrips matter in real life > benchmarking. Hmmm... the underlying storage could be md/dm RAIDs in which case FUA should be cheaper than FLUSH. Thanks. -- tejun -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
