On 2011-08-03 11:03, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> Perhaps the name isn't that great? I'll gladly put in an alias for that >> option, "wait_for_previous" or "barrier" or something like that. Fence? > > wait_before? But then "wait_for_previous" might be the clearest > description. "wait_before" would make sense with an "wait_after" that > waits after the job for its completion. But two options for basically the > same thing might complicate matters even more. Yes, I'm not going to add another option where only the placement of it would make a difference. I'll add wait_for_previous. > So "wait_for_previous" or maybe "finish_previous_first" or just > "finish_previous" would be fine with me. > > But then this doesn´t imply that fio does a cache flush. But that could be > documented in the manpage with an additional hint on this option. I will > think about it and possibly provide a patch. Not really impacted by that, those are controlled on a job by job basis anyway. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
