No, it's at a level below softupdates that this must be done. Softupdates only understands when things have been marked completed with biodone()--the underlying scsi/ata/sata driver must make the determination as to when biodone should be called.
The flush has to be done there. _IF_ the flush is being done there, then request barriers represent a performance enhancement, not an integrity enhancement. -Jon On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Matthias Buelow wrote: > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > >Well, break it down a little bit. If an ATA drive properly implements > >the cache flush command, then none of the ongoing discussion is > > Are you sure this is the case? Are there sequence points in softupdates > where it issues a flush request and by this guarantees fs integrity? > I've read thru McKusick's paper in search for an answer but haven't > found any. All I've read so far on mailing lists and from googling > was that softupdates doesn't work if the wb-cache is enabled. > > mkb. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
