lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush
Tejun Heo, on 08/23/2010 04:14 PM wrote:
>> I think that's correct and changing the priority of DM_ENDIO_REQUEUE
>> for REQ_FLUSH down to the lowest should be fine.
>> (I didn't know that FLUSH failure implies data loss possibility.)
>
> At least on ATA, FLUSH failure implies that data is already lost, so
> the error can't be ignored or retried.

In SCSI there are conditions when a command, including FLUSH
(SYNC_CACHE), failed which don't imply lost data. For them the caller
expected to retry the failed command. Most common cases are Unit
Attentions and TASK QUEUE FULL status.

Vlad


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-24 19:15    [W:0.253 / U:1.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site