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;
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 23:56:47 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fsync_mode mount option for ext4
Message-ID: <20190529065647.GA8405@infradead.org>
References: <20190528032257.GF10043@codeaurora.org>
 <20190528034007.GA19149@mit.edu>
 <20190528034830.GH10043@codeaurora.org>
 <20190528131356.GB19149@mit.edu>
 <20190529040757.GI10043@codeaurora.org>
 <20190529052332.GB6210@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190529052332.GB6210@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 01:23:32AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> If you have protection against sudden shutdown, then nobarrier is
> perfectly safe --- which is to say, if it is guaranteed that any
> writes sent to device will be persisted after a crash, then nobarrier
> is perfectly safe.  So for example, if you are using ext4 connected to
> a million dollar EMC Storage Array, which has battery backup, using
> nobarrier is perfectly safe.

And while we had a few oddities in the past in general any such device
will obviously not claim to even have a volatile write cache, so
nobarrier or this broken proposed mount option won't actually make any
difference.