Il 04/07/2012 12:16, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >> > Yes. It doesn't override cache=unsafe though. > When the guest doesn't support flushes, cache=writeback is equivalent to > cache=unsafe, so if you want the old behaviour back you can switch to > cache=unsafe without additional risks. > > We don't have a cache=directunsafe, though, so if you want to get the > old behaviour of cache=none back, you're out of luck. Not sure how > acceptable this is.
If we want to fix this, let's take the occasion to split the parameters into cache=on/off (well, we have that already), flush=on/off, and a device-side wce=on/off. > Irrespective of this concern I've come to the conclusion that I agree > and we actually must enforce this for non-unsafe mode, and not doing it > is a bug. Thanks! Is that an Acked-by/Reviewed-by? :) Paolo
