Hi Mike, (08/27/10 23:13), Mike Snitzer wrote: >> If there will be no need for supporting a request-based target >> with num_flush_requests > 1, the special handling of flush >> can be removed. >> >> And since there is no such target in the current tree, >> I don't object if you remove that part of code for good reason. > > OK, certainly something to keep in mind. But _really_ knowing the > multipath FLUSH+FUA performance difference (extra special-case code vs > none) requires a full FLUSH conversion of request-based DM anyway. > > In general, request-based DM's barrier/flush code does carry a certain > maintenance overhead. It is quite a bit of distracting code in the core > DM which isn't buying us anything.. so we _could_ just remove it and > never look back (until we have some specific need for num_flush_requests >> 1 in rq-based DM). So, I'm not objecting to your idea. Could you please create a patch to remove that? Thanks, -- Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
