On Tue 02-05-17 08:18:15, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 05:15:58PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > in generic_make_request_checks()? Or just set it unconditionally in that
> > function if we see REQ_FUA | REQ_PREFLUSH set?
>
> Just add REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH to the test in
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...
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.
Hello,
Commit b685d3d65ac7 "block: treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous"
made requests with REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH to be treated as synchronous
and dropped REQ_SYNC from definitions of WRITE_FUA and friends. This
however introduced a bunch of bugs to filesystems (I know
Instead of requiring everyone to specify the REQ_SYNC flag aѕ well.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
include/linux/blk_types.h | 8 +++-
include/linux/fs.h| 6 +++---
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h