From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Regarding ordered-tag support. Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:04:15 -0500 Message-ID: <43EA329F.2000906@pobox.com> References: <43E99248.7090505@gmail.com> <1139413766.3003.19.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <43EA17E6.4000800@gmail.com> <43EA1B75.40008@emulex.com> <43EA2313.9030506@gmail.com> <1139418451.3003.37.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <43EA27E4.9080105@gmail.com> <1139419637.3003.43.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:2195 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030322AbWBHSEZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:04:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1139419637.3003.43.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Tejun , James.Smart@Emulex.Com, SCSI Mailing List James Bottomley wrote: > I suppose I'm a broken record, but I really think linked tasks are the > better way to enforce the required ordering guarantees for SCSI TCQ. > The problem being that this would present a slightly different API at > the block level (you have individual writes that are now ordered, not > wholesale barriers). I strongly agree, since fundamentally, linked tasks is what is really going on. Jeff