Re: [PATCH 08/11] block: rename barrier/ordered to flush

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:23:55PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yeap, agreed.  I couldn't really understand why the the sequence
> needed to be atomic for ide in the first place so just left it alone.
> Do you understand why it tried to be atomic?

I think initial drafs of the barrier specification talked about atomic
sequences.  Except for that I can't think of any reason.

--
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/