linux-ext4 - Re: [linux-lvm] do not disable ext4 discards on first discard failure? [was: Re: dm snapshot: ignore discards issued to the snapshot-origin target]

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, 28 Apr 2011 18:01:18 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@...hat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, DarkNovaNick@...il.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] do not disable ext4 discards on first discard	failure?
 [was: Re: dm snapshot: ignore discards issued to the	snapshot-origin target]

On 4/28/11 5:59 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:28:17PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> I still think that concats of floppies, usb disks, and ssds should be rare, so I'm less concerned about that ;)
> 
> It's the 'undefined' cases that cause us the trouble though: we do have
> to return something and I prefer to work with defined and documented
> behaviour, rather than pretending something is 'undefined' or
> 'unimportant' and later finding people relied on its actual behaviour.

If you are saying that a target should return EOPNOTSUPP when it does not support the operation, then we are in violent agreement.   :)

-Eric
 
> Alasdair

--
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