The way how io_direct.c handles FLUSH|FUA: b1:FLUSH,b2,b3,b4,b5:FLUSH|FUA
is completely wrong: to make sure that b1:FLUSH made effect we have to
wait for its completion. Similarly, even if we're sure that FUA will be
processed as post-FLUSH (also dubious!), we have to wait for completion
b1..b4 to
Maxim Patlasov writes:
> The way how io_direct.c handles FLUSH|FUA: b1:FLUSH,b2,b3,b4,b5:FLUSH|FUA
> is completely wrong: to make sure that b1:FLUSH made effect we have to
> wait for its completion. Similarly, even if we're sure that FUA will be
> processed as post-FLUSH (also dubious!), we have
Maxim Patlasov writes:
> The way how io_direct.c handles FLUSH|FUA: b1:FLUSH,b2,b3,b4,b5:FLUSH|FUA
> is completely wrong: to make sure that b1:FLUSH made effect we have to
> wait for its completion. Similarly, even if we're sure that FUA will be
> processed as post-FLUSH (also dubious!), we have
On 06/22/2016 06:41 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
Maxim Patlasov writes:
The way how io_direct.c handles FLUSH|FUA: b1:FLUSH,b2,b3,b4,b5:FLUSH|FUA
is completely wrong: to make sure that b1:FLUSH made effect we have to
wait for its completion. Similarly, even if we're sure that FUA will be
process
