Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4431d779-e6e7-aff1-5cf8-4147de974d8d@linux.dev>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:06:20 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for post-flush requests
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     axboe@kernel.dk, ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhouchengming@bytedance.com
References: <20230710064705.1847287-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
 <20230710133024.GA23157@lst.de>
From:   Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20230710133024.GA23157@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/7/10 21:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 02:47:04PM +0800, chengming.zhou@linux.dev wrote:
>> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>>
>> If the policy == (REQ_FSEQ_DATA | REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH), it means that the
>> data sequence and post-flush sequence need to be done for this request.
>>
>> The rq->flush.seq should record what sequences have been done (or don't
>> need to be done). So in this case, pre-flush doesn't need to be done,
>> we should init rq->flush.seq to REQ_FSEQ_PREFLUSH not REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH.
>>
>> Of course, this doesn't cause any problem in fact, since pre-flush and
>> post-flush sequence do the same thing for now.
> 
> I wonder if it really doesn't cause any problems, but the change for
> sure looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 
> It should probably go before your other flush optimizations and maybe
> grow a fixes tag.

Ok, will add a Fixes tag and send it as a separate patch since it's a bug fix.

Thanks.