On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:10:49PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 02:00:13PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > It's certainly not in dispute that read fua is a documented, legitimate > > command, so there's no reason for the block layer to be rejecting it. > > > > Whether it has exactly the behaviour we want isn't a critical issue that > > has to be determined right now. The starting point for that will be to > > test device behaviour (with some simple performance tests, like I > > mentioned), and anyways it's outside the scope of the block layer. > > Maybe just change the commit log. Read FUA has legit uses for persisting > data as described by the specs. No need to introduce contested behavior > to justify this patch, yah? That's reasonable, I'll do that.
