On 10 Apr 2016, at 00:17, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > No, the code is correct. In both functions, the logic is that if the > lower-level knows that the server respects FUA, then it clears the flag > before returning (flags is passed by reference, not value). Then at > this higher level, if FUA is still set, the server is too old, so we do > a fallback flush to get the same semantics for the write in question, > but at higher cost of a full flush.
OK, thanks. -- Alex Bligh
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
