linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

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, 3 Dec 2015 12:07:23 +0100
From:	Matias Bjørling <m@...rling.me>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

On 12/03/2015 11:21 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:09:03AM +0100, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>> Similar to this?
>
> For the interface yes.  Now just get rid of using nvme_ns entirely -
> seems like you just want ns_id and lba_shift, and those should fit
> well into nvm_dev I think.
>

What is the reason to keep the nvme_ns internally to the nvme core?

We can definitely move ->nsid and the lba_shift into nvm_dev. Only thing 
I have is that it moves a small part of nvme logic into the lightnvm core.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/