On 06/04/2013 11:32 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Martin K. Petersen > <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> "hpa" == H Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> hpa> One subdevice accepts it and the other doesn't, presumably. >> >> Ah. Well fail the command and let the block layer deal with it. This is >> really no different from the discard case. > > Which md also does not handle if the device later returns "illegal > request" to a discard command. My point about one device accepting > the write and another device dropping it is we now have an > inconsistent array and a write command to complete. So I don't see > how md can wait/trust that the upper layer will retry and fix things > up? Translate and retry internally for these command types, return > success to the original request, and disable future requests. > Well, if that is what the block device layer is defined to do then that is what the block layer does. It makes sense from the point of view of a disk, there block layer has to translate and redo, so if the block layer is defined to do that, why not rely on it? -hpa -- 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
