Re: Treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:45:05 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20170502102123.GE13916@quack2.suse.cz>
User-agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:21:23PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> it makes sense to treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH ops as synchronous in
> op_is_sync() since callers cannot rely on this anyway... Thoughts?

I'm fine with treating them as sync.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous
  - From: Jens Axboe

References:
- Treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous
  - From: Jan Kara

Prev by Date: Re: BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in scsi_exit_rq
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mtip32xx: convert internal command issue to block IO path
Previous by thread: Treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous
Next by thread: Re: Treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ATA RAID] [IDE] [Linux Wireless] [Linux Kernel] [ATH6KL] [Linux Bluetooth] [Linux Netdev] [Kernel Newbies] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Device Mapper]

Powered by Linux