On Tue 02-05-17 08:49:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 05/02/2017 08:45 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:21:23PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> it makes sense to treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH ops as synchronous in
> >> op_is_sync() since callers cannot rely on this anyway... Thoughts?
> >
> > I'm fine with treating them as sync.
>
> Yes me too. It makes sense to do so implicitly, and it avoids having
> to go and add REQ_SYNC in a bunch of places. That will also be more
> error proof in the future.
>
> Jan, will you send a patch for that?
Hum, so I've just sent out fixes to individual filesystems to set REQ_SYNC
explicitely :-|. So would you prefer to do something like:
if (op_is_flush(bio->bi_opf) &&
!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_WC, &q->queue_flags)) {
bio->bi_opf &= ~(REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA);
+ bio->bi_opf |= REQ_SYNC;
if (!nr_sectors) {
err = 0;
goto end_io;
}
}
in generic_make_request_checks()? Or just set it unconditionally in that
function if we see REQ_FUA | REQ_PREFLUSH set? Because we cannot just add
REQ_SYNC into REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH definitions as it used to be with
WRITE_FUA & co. definitions...
In the end I think that modifying filesystems (and drivers/md) to set REQ_SYNC
was the cleanest way to go as much as it was annoying...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
