On 9/21/22 16:55, Damien Le Moal wrote:
But again, that all depends on if Pankaj patch series is accepted, that
is, on everybody accepting that we lift the power-of-2 zone size constraint.
The companies that are busy with implementing zoned storage for UFS
devices are asking for kernel
On 9/23/22 04:37, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21 2022 at 7:55P -0400,
> Damien Le Moal wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/22 02:27, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 20 2022 at 5:11P -0400,
>>> Pankaj Raghav wrote:
>>>
- Background and Motivation:
The zone storage implementation in
On Wed, Sep 21 2022 at 7:55P -0400,
Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 9/22/22 02:27, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20 2022 at 5:11P -0400,
> > Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> >
> >> - Background and Motivation:
> >>
> >> The zone storage implementation in Linux, introduced since v4.10, first
> >>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 01:04:33AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:39 AM Brian Foster wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:02:31PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:56 AM Brian Foster wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at
Thanks a lot Damien for the summary. Your feedback has made this series
much better.
> Pankaj patch series is all about supporting ZNS devices that have a zone
> size that is not a power of 2 number of LBAs as some vendors want to
> produce such drives. There is no such move happening in the SMR
> @@ -330,7 +344,9 @@ static void brd_submit_bio(struct bio *b
> struct bio_vec bvec;
> struct bvec_iter iter;
>
> - if (bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_DISCARD) {
> + if (bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_DISCARD ||
> + bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE ||
> + bio_op(bio) ==
