On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:27:20AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > > >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >> index 59a732a13370..659a3b4645d2 100644 > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >> @@ -3494,7 +3494,8 @@ static void write_dev_flush(struct btrfs_device > >> *device) > >> struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(device->bdev); > >> struct bio *bio = device->flush_bio; > >> - if (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_WC, &q->queue_flags)) > >> + if (!test_bit(BTRFS_FS_FORCE_DEV_FLUSH, &device->fs_info->flags) > >> + && !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_WC, &q->queue_flags)) > >> return; > > > > > > Now I understand what you meant. But the most common case in our test > > set up is a device with write cache. So BTRFS_FS_FORCE_DEV_FLUSH does > > not bring any additional force. IMO. > > > > Thanks, Anand > > Or one another idea is we could remove > > !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_WC, &q->queue_flags) > > which purpose is to only fail early. I'd prefer to keep it that way. > If we remove it there is consistency in our code with or > with out the write cache. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
