From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934523AbcIOMN7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:13:59 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:50669 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933894AbcIOMN4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:13:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 04:38:07 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Wouter Verhelst Cc: Josef Bacik , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, mpa@pengutronix.de, kernel-team@fb.com, nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements Message-ID: <20160915113807.GA23259@infradead.org> References: <1473369130-22986-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> <20160909200203.phhvodsfs7ymukfp@grep.be> <20160915104935.ohuwgq2chsedz6fl@grep.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160915104935.ohuwgq2chsedz6fl@grep.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > A while back, we spent quite some time defining the semantics of the > various commands in the face of the NBD_CMD_FLUSH and NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA > write barriers. At the time, we decided that it would be unreasonable > to expect servers to make these write barriers effective across > different connections. Do you have a nbd protocol specification? treating a flush or fua as any sort of barrier is incredibly stupid. Is it really documented that way, and if yes, why?