From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 4/5] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support for request-based dm Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:54:40 -0400 Message-ID: <20100901125439.GA25097@redhat.com> References: <1283162296-13650-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1283162296-13650-5-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20100830132836.GB5283@redhat.com> <4C7BB932.1070405@kernel.org> <4C7BD202.4040700@kernel.org> <20100830194731.GA10702@redhat.com> <4C7E36E8.2000705@kernel.org> <4C7E4A2D.2090309@kernel.org> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C7E4A2D.2090309@kernel.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Tejun Heo Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, Mikulas Patocka List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Wed, Sep 01 2010 at 8:42am -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 09/01/2010 02:12 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > That may be true for request-based dm (I don't know). > > Oh, okay, this part of thread was for request based dm, so I assumed > you were talking about it. > > > But bio-based dm doesn't depend on it, I wrote it and I didn't rely on > > that. > > If you look at the two patches for bio-based ones. The first one is > basically what you're talking about w/ s/barrier/flush/ renames and > dropping of -EOPNOTSUPP. It doesn't really change the mechanism much. > If you don't feel comfortable about the second one, we sure can > postpone it but it's still quite away from the next merge window and > what would be the point of delaying it? Right, we have a window of opportunity to sort this out now. No sense in wasting it. Mike