On 12/03/2012 08:52 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 10:59:39AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> On 11/22/2012 05:06 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> And this extra fsync is now not done in the aio path. I.e. the AIO >>> completion path needs to issue the fsync to maintain correct REQ_FUA >>> semantics... >> >> If this is really necessary, I can fix it. > > Absolutely. If we don't implement FUA properly, we'll end up with > corrupted filesystems and/or data loss when kernel crashes or > powerloss occurs. That's not an acceptable outcome, so we need FUA > to be implemented properly. Okay, just wanted to make sure. Thanks, Shaggy -- 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
