From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751B6C001DF for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:09:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231439AbjGKMJa (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:09:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45276 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231297AbjGKMJM (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:09:12 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DC5010E5; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 05:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 54F1667373; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:09:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:09:06 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Chengming Zhou Cc: Christoph Hellwig , axboe@kernel.dk, ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhouchengming@bytedance.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for post-flush requests Message-ID: <20230711120906.GA27827@lst.de> References: <20230710064705.1847287-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev> <20230710133024.GA23157@lst.de> <4431d779-e6e7-aff1-5cf8-4147de974d8d@linux.dev> <20230711113126.GA26978@lst.de> <6825f687-9573-51eb-bb89-17eadb60f71b@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6825f687-9573-51eb-bb89-17eadb60f71b@linux.dev> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 07:52:11PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote: > On 2023/7/11 19:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 07:06:20PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote: > >> Ok, will add a Fixes tag and send it as a separate patch since it's a bug fix. > > > > Btw, it's probably not worth resending patch 2 until we've figured out > > and dealt with the SATA flush regression that Chuck reported. > > Ok, I will not resend patch 2. As for the patch 1, should I resend it as a separate patch > or just put it in that series [1] before other flush optimizations ? I'd wait a bit for debugging the regression. For the worst case we'll have to revert the patch, which currently can be done cleanly, but can't be with that patch.