Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier withsequenced flush

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin]

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/