On 06/19/2017 12:25 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 09:11:30AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> I have two samples here, and I just tested, and both of them want it >> assigned with nsid=0xffffffff or they will fail the writes... So I'd say >> we're better off ensuring we do allocate them globally. > > That's clearly against the spec. I'd say go to your vendor and get > a refund, as we Linux folks (Martin and I) fought for this so that > we would not have to do the explicit allocations. > > Another quote for from the spec: > > "Streams are opened by the controller when the host issues a write > command that specifies a stream identifier that is not currently open. > While a stream is open the controller maintains context for that stream > (e.g., buffers for associated data). The host may determine the streams > that are open using the Get Status operation." > > And I think this is very important - otherwise you need to either > allocate the stremas beforehand as your earlier patches (and we take > away the resources from the 99% of the users not using write life > hints), or we need the lazy allocation scheme. And for that to be > efficient it probably needs to be lazy per-stream allocation. That's > why we got the implicit open in after all.
These are just samples, so no refund possible! As you might remember, I was pretty adamant on not wanting explicit open/close as well, back in those days. I'll check with the vendor and see what's going on. -- Jens Axboe
