On Jan 22, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/22/18 8:18 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: >>> that their application was "already broken". I'd hate for a kernel >>> upgrade to break them. >>> >>> I do wish we could make the change, and maybe we can. But it probably >>> needs some safe guard proc entry to toggle the behavior, something we >>> can drop in a few years when we're confident it won't break real >>> applications. >> >> Assuming we call it /proc/sys/fs/dio_short_writes(better names/paths?), >> should it be enabled or disabled by default? > > I'd enable it by default, if not, you are never going to be able to > remove it because you'll have no confidence that anyone actually flipped > the switch and ran with it enabled. The point of having it there and on > by default would be that if something does break, people have the option > of turning it off and restoring the previous behavior, without having to > change the kernel.
... or fixing their application. :-) But, yes, I agree that this should be on by default. Cheers, Andreas
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
