![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Sep 09 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > Precisely, it's always possible to just drop queueing depth to zero at > > that point. If I2O really does reorder around the cache flush (this > > seems broken...), > > why does this seem broken? semantics of "cache flush guarantees that all > io submitted prior to it hits the spindle" are quite sane imo; no > guarantee of later submitted IO.. compare the unix "sync" command; same > level of semantics. Depends on your angle, I think it breaks the principle of least surprise. -- Jens Axboe - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||