Re: [PATCH 1/7] block: Add block_flush_device()

[Tejun Heo]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>> The question is really what we do when you have a storage device in your box
>>>> with a volatile write cache that does support flush or fua or similar.
>>> Ok. Then you are talking about a different case - not EOPNOTSUPP.
>> So here's a test patch that attempts to just ignore such a failure to
>> flush the caches. It will still flag the bio as BIO_EOPNOTSUPP, but
>> that's merely maintaining the information in case the caller does want
>> to see if that barrier failed or not. It may not actually be useful, in
>> which case we can just kill that flag.
> 
> Updated version, the previous missed most of the buffer_eopnotsupp()
> checking. So this one also gets rid of the file system retry logic.
> Thanks to gfs2 Steve for pointing out that I missed gfs2, made me
> realize that I missed a lot more as well.

Wouldn't it be cleaner to simply finish with success status from
blk_do_ordered()?  That is the single place that all flush/barrier ops
go through and semantically better place too.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/