On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:06:22 -0600, Doug Maxey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:11:37 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:16:01 -0600, Doug Maxey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >We have too many config options already.
> >
> >Behavior should be simple:
> >* no cache flushes - wcache off by default
> >* cache flushes - wcache on by default
> >* inform user about the wcache status
> >* allow changing of wcache by user
>
> My interpretation of what you are saying here is the selection of
> "cache flush" drives the setting of wcache. Are you saying that
> "barrier=off" on the boot line the currently (only and will remain)
> supported method controlling flushes?
No, I am saying that cache flush is a property of disk not fs.
On the contrary barrier is a property of filesystem.
> AFAICS, "barrier=off" just tells the FS (only ext2 and reiser) to not
> flush writes. I may be misunderstanding how that controls the
> behavior of the drive at the ll_blk layer. Is that what you want to
> see a patch to, pick this out of the FS?
No, why?
> >>
> >> 1) move the cache_write code to ide-io, where it will be callable from
> >> kernels built without ide-disk.
> >
> >I've already pointed this out - this is not needed, you should add
> >check similar to this for 'xfer_set'. Another reason not to do this
> >is that write_cache() uses REQ_DRIVE_TASKFILE internally.
>
> Is taskfile going away?
Quite the opposite but if you want to use taskfile, map whole
ide_cmd_ioctl() to it not CACHE_FLUSH_{EXT} command only
and don't intermix bugfixes with potentially risky changes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
