Re: [PATCH 18/26] block: move the synchronous flag to queue_limits
- To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
- Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@linbit.com>, Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>, Christoph Böhmwalder <christoph.boehmwalder@linbit.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>, Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@linux.ibm.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, nbd@other.debian.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/26] block: move the synchronous flag to queue_limits
- From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:13:50 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 0d4a7361-f3f1-4014-af92-9abd45223fed@kernel.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20240611051929.513387-19-hch@lst.de>
- References: <[🔎] 20240611051929.513387-1-hch@lst.de> <[🔎] 20240611051929.513387-19-hch@lst.de>
On 6/11/24 2:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Move the synchronous flag into the queue_limits feature field so that it
> can be set atomically and all I/O is frozen when changing the flag.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
Reply to: