On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:39:24AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted text
> barrier=0 really means losemydata=1.  The plan I discussed with Jens was
> to allow to disable the flush and fua semantics in the block layer, so
> we'll have one new tunable for that, which is documented to causes these
> issues.  

Oh.  I wasn't aware that anyone was planning to put in a tuning knob for
flush/fua, red warning light or otherwise.  What is the name of the tunable,
and when will it appear?  Or has it already?

quoted text
> > picks the safe option by default.  However, I'd prefer /proc/mounts not
> > misrepresent the status of flush support, to the best of ext4's knowledge.
> 
> That's bullshit.  The barrier option has traditionally meant that we

Well then, let's remove the barrier= mount flag altogether.  No need for strong
language over a minor issue. :)  When I see some patches I will push this
through my testing setup and report back what data I collect.

--D

quoted text
> sent barrier requests, and now means thatwe send flush+fua requests.
> There's no reason for a warning and option mislabling just because you
> got the most efficient implementation of it.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/