linux-kernel - Re: What happened to TRIM support for raid linear/0/1/10?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:24:59 +1000
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Holger Kiehl <Holger.Kiehl@....de>
Cc:	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
	"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: What happened to TRIM support for raid linear/0/1/10?

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:10:51 +0000 (GMT) Holger Kiehl <Holger.Kiehl@....de>
wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have been using the patches posted by Shaohua Li on 16th March 2012:
> 
>     http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1203.2/00048.html
> 
> for several month on a very busy file server (serving 9 million files
> with 5.3 TiB daily) without any problems.
> 
> Is there any chance that these patches will go into the official kernel?
> Or what is the reason that these patches are no applied?

I'm trying to appear to be an incompetent maintainer so that someone will
offer to take over.  It isn't working yet.  I'm probably scuttling the
attempt just by replying to this email - drat.

> 
> I have attached the patch set in one big patch for 3.5. Please do not
> use it since I am not sure if it is correct. Shaohua could you please
> take a look if it is correct and maybe post a new one?
> 
> Personally, I would think that TRIM support MD would be a very good thing.

Probably.  Maybe if they get posted again I'll feel guilty and do something
about them.

One issue that needs to be fixed is that a few places assumed that the
"discard_zeros_data" flag is always set, which is not the case (else we
wouldn't have that flag).  That was only a couple of places though, not a
wide spread problem.

NeilBrown



> 
> Regards,
> Holger

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)