Christoph,
> I'm really not sure we should check for -EREMOTEIO specifically, but
> Martin who is more familiar with the SCSI code might be able to
> correct me, I'd feel safer about checking for any error which is
> what the old code did.
>
> Except for that the patch looks fine to me.
We
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:38:10PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> sd_config_write_same() ignores ->max_ws_blocks == 0 and resets it to
>> permit trying WRITE SAME on older SCSI devices, unless ->no_write_same
>> is set.
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:38:10PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> sd_config_write_same() ignores ->max_ws_blocks == 0 and resets it to
> permit trying WRITE SAME on older SCSI devices, unless ->no_write_same
> is set. This means blkdev_issue_zeroout() must cope with WRITE SAME
> failing with
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> sd_config_write_same() ignores ->max_ws_blocks == 0 and resets it to
>> permit trying WRITE SAME on older SCSI devices, unless ->no_write_same
>>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> sd_config_write_same() ignores ->max_ws_blocks == 0 and resets it to
> permit trying WRITE SAME on older SCSI devices, unless ->no_write_same
> is set. This means blkdev_issue_zeroout() must cope with WRITE SAME
> failing
sd_config_write_same() ignores ->max_ws_blocks == 0 and resets it to
permit trying WRITE SAME on older SCSI devices, unless ->no_write_same
is set. This means blkdev_issue_zeroout() must cope with WRITE SAME
failing with BLK_STS_TARGET/-EREMOTEIO and explicitly write zeroes,
unless