[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] [PATCH] virtio-blk: restore VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE (VIRTIO-144)
On 02/07/2015 19:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:10:48PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 02/07/2015 13:21, James Bottomley wrote: >>>> +If the \field{VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH} feature is not negotiated, the >>>> +device SHOULD ensure that all writes are committed to non-volatile >>>> +storage before reporting completion. It MUST do so if it proposed >>>> +\field{VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH}. Failure to do so can cause data loss. >>> >>> Not SHOULD, MUST. Please don't leave spec based doors open to bad >>> implementations. An implementation that allows data corruption MUST NOT >>> have a spec interpretation that supports it. >> >> What I'm trying to do is to make it possible for the guest to detect an >> implementation that is intentionally unsafe. Such an implementation >> MUST NOT propose the VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH feature, unlike the USB drives >> you mention. I totally agree that WCE and FLUSH are not separable. > > Hmm. Very simple drivers don't negotiate any features. > Making such drivers lose data isn't a good idea I think. But it won't! Unless it talks to a very simple device that also doesn't negotiate any feature (including VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH). Bringing the "cheap USB pen drive" parallel forward, such a simple device would probably disregard MUSTs left and right anyway. At least what I wrote makes it possible for a not-so-simple driver to know it's talking to a very simple device. Paolo
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]