On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:25:34PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > OK, now I understand why I'm confused. I thought the proposal was to > change sb_issue_discard() to make it be asynchronous? Really, what > we're talking about here is eliminating the explicit > barrier/SYNCHRONIZE CACHE from the discard, correct? The > sb_issue_discard() call will still remain synchronous. Yes, at least for now. I don't think keeping it that way over the long run is a good idea, but for now getting rid of the barrier is all that *needs* to be done. The rest is optimizations that can be done later. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
