[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101119140639.GA25488@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:06:39 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, tytso@....edu,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate
super_operation
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:01:02AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> That is my intent already, thanks. Just needs time, perhaps this winter.
This wasn't addressed at you, but a snide remark at Greg, who is just
contantly bickering without actually beeing any help.
> I think a reasonable approach would be to modify the existing interfaces
> so that the LLD can report a "max discard ranges per command" back up
> the stack.
>
> This way, libata could report a max of say, 64 ranges per "discard" (trim),
> and DM/RAID could simply (for now) report a max of one range per discard.
That's certainly the easy way out. You'll need a good way to actually
transport the ranges as we can't simply sote them in bi_sector/bi_size
and adapt the whole block layer to deal with the two types of different
discards. Not saying it's impossible, but when I tried it before it
wasn't pretty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists