From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261563AbUKIQLt (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:11:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261567AbUKIQLs (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:11:48 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:40888 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261563AbUKIQLr (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:11:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:11:12 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.10-rc1-mm4 Message-ID: <20041109161112.GA3921@suse.de> References: <20041109074909.3f287966.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041109074909.3f287966.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 09 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > +blk_sync_queue-updates.patch > > update an update to the md updates I still don't think this is a good general export, it has very specialized use. For example, from the description it looks like this can be generally used on any block device and when it returns, we have synced the queue. This simply isn't true, there are absolutely no guarentees of that nature unless the block driver itself implements the __make_request() functionality and has taken proper precautions to prevent this already. -- Jens Axboe