On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:28:21 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
> kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
> have two callers left, and both just export optional protocol features
> to remote systems:
Christoph,
> Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
> kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
> have two callers left, and both just export optional protocol features
> to remote systems: DRBD and the target code.
Applied to
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:07:56PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Let's just use the SCSI tree - I didn't check if it throws any conflicts
> right now, so probably something to check upfront...
There is a minor conflict because the __blkdev_issue_write_same
function removed by this series is affected
On 2/9/22 10:51 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:00:26PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>
>> Christoph,
>>
>>> Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
>>> kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
>>> have two
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:00:26PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Christoph,
>
> > Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
> > kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
> > have two callers left, and both just export optional
Christoph,
> Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
> kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
> have two callers left, and both just export optional protocol features
> to remote systems: DRBD and the target code.
No particular
Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
have two callers left, and both just export optional protocol features
to remote systems: DRBD and the target code.
For the target code the only real use
Christoph,
> Any chance to get a sneak preview of that work?
I have been on the road since LSF/MM and just got back home. I'll make
it a priority.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:23:10PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> The other thing that keeps me a bit on the fence is that a bunch of the
> plumbing to handle a bio with a payload different from bi_size is needed
> for the copy offload token. I'm hoping to have those patches ready for
> 4.13.
Christoph,
> Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
> kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
> have two callers left, and both just export optional protocol features
> to remote systems: DRBD and the target code.
While I'm not
Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the
kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only
have two callers left, and both just export optional protocol features
to remote systems: DRBD and the target code.
For the target code the only real use
11 matches
Mail list logo
