From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] relaxed barrier semantics Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 21:40:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20100805194046.GA18518@lst.de> References: <4C4FECFE.9040509@kernel.org> <20100728085048.GA8884@lst.de> <4C4FF136.5000205@kernel.org> <20100728090025.GA9252@lst.de> <4C4FF592.9090800@kernel.org> <20100728092859.GA11096@lst.de> <20100802173930.GP16630@think> <4C5AB89C.5080700@vlnb.net> <20100805170933.GB10728@lst.de> <4C5B11B4.9020807@vlnb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C5B11B4.9020807@vlnb.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chris Mason , Tejun Heo , Vivek Goyal , Jan Kara , jaxboe@fusionio.com, James.Bottomley@suse.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, swhiteho@redhat.com, konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 11:32:04PM +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > New flag.. Easy to add, hard to live with. Aren't you already tied of > the existing flags hell? I'm tired of flags without a very well defined meaning. For example I'm really tired of the current REQ_HARDBARRIER because it means so amy different things. A must do pre-flush or must do FUA flag is very different from a must not reorder flag. Overloading the meaning is what got us into this mess.