From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:35158 "EHLO mail-it0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952AbdEBOtR (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2017 10:49:17 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c15so42126033ith.0 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 07:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous To: Christoph Hellwig , Jan Kara References: <20170502102123.GE13916@quack2.suse.cz> <20170502144505.GA29623@infradead.org> Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 08:49:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170502144505.GA29623@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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... Thoughts? > > I'm fine with treating them as sync. Yes me too. It makes sense to do so implicitly, and it avoids having to go and add REQ_SYNC in a bunch of places. That will also be more error proof in the future. Jan, will you send a patch for that? -- Jens Axboe