On 2023/7/10 21:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 02:47:04PM +0800, chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> If the policy == (REQ_FSEQ_DATA | REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH), it means that the >> data sequence and post-flush sequence need to be done for this request. >> >> The rq->flush.seq should record what sequences have been done (or don't >> need to be done). So in this case, pre-flush doesn't need to be done, >> we should init rq->flush.seq to REQ_FSEQ_PREFLUSH not REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH. >> >> Of course, this doesn't cause any problem in fact, since pre-flush and >> post-flush sequence do the same thing for now. > > I wonder if it really doesn't cause any problems, but the change for > sure looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > It should probably go before your other flush optimizations and maybe > grow a fixes tag. Ok, will add a Fixes tag and send it as a separate patch since it's a bug fix. Thanks.
