On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 02:55:31PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: [..] > > > + /* > > > + * All FLUSH/FUA requests are expected to have gone through the > > > + * flush machinary. If a request's cmd_flags doesn't match the > > > + * flush_flags of the underlying request_queue it is a bug. > > > + */ > > > + BUG_ON((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FLUSH) && !(q->flush_flags & REQ_FLUSH)); > > > + BUG_ON((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FUA) && !(q->flush_flags & REQ_FUA)); > > > + > > > > Actually this makes sense and is simple. :-) Is BUG_ON() too harsh, how > > about WARN_ONCE() variants? To me system continues to work so warning > > is probably good enough. > > Sure, WARN_ONCE() is fine by me. > > Seems Tejun wants a more involved fix though. Fixing it properly doesn't hurt. Makes it more future proof. In fact I am thinking what happens to blk_execute_rq() variants where one can prepare a request and send it down. What if caller sets FLUSH/FUA flags there. Thanks Vivek -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
