On 2023/7/11 19:06, Chengming Zhou wrote: > 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. > Well, I should put it in that series before other flush optimizations instead.
