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: <6825f687-9573-51eb-bb89-17eadb60f71b@linux.dev>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:52:11 +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>
 <4431d779-e6e7-aff1-5cf8-4147de974d8d@linux.dev>
 <20230711113126.GA26978@lst.de>
From:   Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20230711113126.GA26978@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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 search on the block mail list, find the issue [2] you mentioned, will look into it too.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230707093722.1338589-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/7A57C7AE-A51A-4254-888B-FE15CA21F9E9@oracle.com/