On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 08:26 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 09:50:35PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > 1) Expose a block_device or request_queue bit to signal 'real LBPRZ'
> > support up to IBLOCK, in order to maintain SCSI target feature
> > compatibility.
>
> No way.
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 09:50:35PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> 1) Expose a block_device or request_queue bit to signal 'real LBPRZ'
> support up to IBLOCK, in order to maintain SCSI target feature
> compatibility.
No way. If you want to zero use REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES..
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:06 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:46:14PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > That said, simply propagating up q->limits.max_write_zeroes_sectors as
> > dev_attrib->unmap_zeroes_data following existing code still looks like
> > the right thing
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:46:14PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> That said, simply propagating up q->limits.max_write_zeroes_sectors as
> dev_attrib->unmap_zeroes_data following existing code still looks like
> the right thing to do.
It is not. Martin has decoupled write same/zeroes
On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:33:15PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > The larger target/iblock conversion patch looks like post v4.12 material
> > at this point, so to avoid breakage wrt to existing LBPRZ behavior, I'll
> > plan to push
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:33:15PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> The larger target/iblock conversion patch looks like post v4.12 material
> at this point, so to avoid breakage wrt to existing LBPRZ behavior, I'll
> plan to push the following patch post -rc1.
I don't think this is safe.
On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 10:33 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, May 02 2017 at 11:33pm -0400,
> Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:23 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:16:13AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > Or,
On Tue, May 02 2017 at 11:33pm -0400,
Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:23 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:16:13AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > Or, another options is use bdev_write_zeroes_sectors() to determine
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:23 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:16:13AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > Or, another options is use bdev_write_zeroes_sectors() to determine when
> > dev_attrib->unmap_zeroes_data should be set.
>
> Yes, that in combination with your patch
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:16:13AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> Or, another options is use bdev_write_zeroes_sectors() to determine when
> dev_attrib->unmap_zeroes_data should be set.
Yes, that in combination with your patch to use bdev_write_zeroes_sectors
for zeroing from write same
On Mon, 2017-05-01 at 23:43 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-01 at 20:45 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 19:21 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Now that we use the proper REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operation everywhere we can
> > > kill this hack.
> > >
On Mon, 2017-05-01 at 20:45 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 19:21 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Now that we use the proper REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operation everywhere we can
> > kill this hack.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
> > Reviewed-by: Martin
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 19:21 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Now that we use the proper REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operation everywhere we can
> kill this hack.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
> Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen
> Reviewed-by: Hannes
13 matches
Mail list logo