nbd: don't request FUA on FLUSH
The NBD protocol does not clearly document what will happen if a client sends NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA on NBD_CMD_FLUSH. Historically, both the qemu and upstream NBD servers silently ignored that flag, but that feels a bit risky. Meanwhile, the qemu NBD client unconditionally sends the flag (without even bothering to check whether the caller cares; at least with NBD_CMD_WRITE the client only sends FUA if requested by a higher layer). There is ongoing discussion on the NBD list to fix the protocol documentation to require that the server MUST ignore the flag (unless the kernel folks can better explain what FUA means for a flush), but until those doc improvements land, the current nbd.git master was recently changed to reject the flag with EINVAL (see nbd commit ab22e082), which now makes it impossible for a qemu client to use FLUSH with an upstream NBD server. We should not send FUA with flush unless the upstream protocol documents what it will do, and even then, it should be something that the caller can opt into, rather than being unconditional. Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Message-Id: <1459526902-32561-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
0c52a80eeb
commit
a89ef0c357
@ -319,10 +319,6 @@ int nbd_client_co_flush(BlockDriverState *bs)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (client->nbdflags & NBD_FLAG_SEND_FUA) {
|
||||
request.type |= NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
request.from = 0;
|
||||
request.len = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user