Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Callers of blk_execute_rq are special. Those aren't REQ_TYPE_FS requests, and so the callers are responsible for doing their own sequencing. Cheers, Jeff -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
