From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Thornber <thornber@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: dm-cache invalidate_cblocks range parsing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:50:19 +0000
Message-ID: <20131125095018.GA10831@debian>
References: <33A0129EBFD46748804DE81B354CA1B21C0532E5@SACEXCMBX06-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Reply-To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <33A0129EBFD46748804DE81B354CA1B21C0532E5@SACEXCMBX06-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Id: dm-devel.ids

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 02:25:33AM +0000, Mears, Morgan wrote:
> If one specifies a cblock range in the dm-cache invalidate_cblocks message
> (commit 65790ff919e2e07ccb4457415c11075b245d643b), the final cblock in the 
> range does not get invalidated.  For example, after:
> 
> 	dmsetup message cache 0 invalidate_cblocks 10-11
> 
> cblock 11 will still be in the cache.  The reason is the (begin != end)
> check in process_invalidation_request() (dm-cache-target.c); were it to
> change to (begin <= end), the final block would be treated like the rest.
> 
> However, parse_cblock_range() relies on the current behavior for the single
> block case; if the change above were applied, an extra block would be
> invalidated for each single-block invalidation request.
> 
> So: is the current behavior intentional?

Yes.