On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:39:24AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > barrier=0 really means losemydata=1. The plan I discussed with Jens was > to allow to disable the flush and fua semantics in the block layer, so > we'll have one new tunable for that, which is documented to causes these > issues. Oh. I wasn't aware that anyone was planning to put in a tuning knob for flush/fua, red warning light or otherwise. What is the name of the tunable, and when will it appear? Or has it already? > > picks the safe option by default. However, I'd prefer /proc/mounts not > > misrepresent the status of flush support, to the best of ext4's knowledge. > > That's bullshit. The barrier option has traditionally meant that we Well then, let's remove the barrier= mount flag altogether. No need for strong language over a minor issue. :) When I see some patches I will push this through my testing setup and report back what data I collect. --D > sent barrier requests, and now means thatwe send flush+fua requests. > There's no reason for a warning and option mislabling just because you > got the most efficient implementation of it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
