Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org E5A6160F3A
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 09:18:30 +0530
From:   Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fsync_mode mount option for ext4
Message-ID: <20190528034830.GH10043@codeaurora.org>
References: <20190528032257.GF10043@codeaurora.org>
 <20190528034007.GA19149@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190528034007.GA19149@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Ted,

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:40:07PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:52:57AM +0530, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > Hi Ted, Andreas,
> > 
> > Do you think this mount option "fsync_mode=nobarrier"
> > can be added for EXT4 as well like in F2FS? Please
> > share your thoughts on this.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/908934/
> 
> Ext4 already has the nobarrier mount option.
> 

Yes, but fsync_mode=nobarrier is little different than
a general nobarrier option. The fsync_mode=nobarrier is
only controlling the flush policy for fsync() path, unlike
the nobarrier mount option which is applicable at all
places in the filesystem.

Thanks,

> Cheers,
> 
>      	     	     	       	     - Ted

-- 
--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.