On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:51:06AM +, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
wrote:
> SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (16) should be favored over SYNCHRONIZE
> CACHE (10) unless SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (10) is not supported.
I gues you mean (16) for the last occurance? What's the benefit of
using SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53:33PM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> I still see this problem. There was talk of fixing it elsewhere.
Well, what we have right not is entirely broken, given that the
block layer doesn't initialize ->timeout on TYPE_FS requeuests.
We either need to revert that initial c
