On Oct 15, 2013, at 1:32 AM, Dongmao Zhang wrote: > 于 2013年10月11日 00:29, Brassow Jonathan 写道: >> Perhaps a better thing to do is to integrate the marks (and possibly >> clears) into the flush - DM_INTEGRATED_FLUSH. The payload for the >> DM_ULOG_FLUSH flush communication is empty. It seems to me now that >> it would make more sense to make use of that empty space and fill it >> with mark/clear requests. What do you think? >> > > DM_INTEGRATED_FLUSH is a good idea. It just simplify the confusion of > DM_FLUSH_WITH_MARK thing. My plan is to add (mark and clear) payload to > flush. It is like this: > > 'X' means we have this kind of request, while '0' means none. > > mark request : X X 0 > > clear request: X 0 X > > flush method: payload_flush payload_flush delayed flush. > > If there is only clear requests, we can send the clear request first, and send normal flush later. how do you like this strategy? > > As for the testing, I only have ocfs2 available.(not GFS2). I will > test on that; All sounds good. brassow -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
