Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760112AbZCWVwq (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:52:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755230AbZCWVwg (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:52:36 -0400 Received: from mail-in-06.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.46]:33992 "EHLO mail-in-06.arcor-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751706AbZCWVwf (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:52:35 -0400 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 mail-in-07.arcor-online.net 7169C3CA5F9 From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> Subject: Re: Barriers still not passing on simple dm devices... To: Eric Sandeen , device-mapper development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jens Axboe , Andi Kleen , ?missing.closing.'"' in token?"MASON", CHRISTOPHER "@vax.1wt.eu Illegal-Object: Syntax error in To: address found on vger.kernel.org: To: ?missing closing '"' in token?"MASON", CHRISTOPHER " ^ ^-missing closing '"' in token \-extraneous tokens in address Illegal-Object: Syntax error in To: address found on vger.kernel.org: To: ?missing closing '"' in token?"MASON", CHRISTOPHER " ^ ^-missing closing '"' in token \-extraneous tokens in address Reply-To: 7eggert@gmx.de Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:52:31 +0100 References: User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1005 Lines: 15 Eric Sandeen wrote: > I've noticed that on 2.6.29-rcX, with Andi's patch > (ab4c1424882be9cd70b89abf2b484add355712fa, dm: support barriers on > simple devices) barriers are still getting rejected on these simple devices. > So what's the right way around this? What should dm (or md for that > matter) advertise on their queues about ordered-ness? Should there be > some sort of "QUEUE_ORDERED_PASSTHROUGH" or something to say "this level > doesn't care, ask the next level" or somesuch? Or should it inherit the > flag from the next level down? Ideas? IMO each block device SHOULD provide barriers - either native or emulated, and each meta device MUST provide emulated barriers if it provides dynamic device binding and barriers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/