[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DBEC3F4.3050804@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 09:47:16 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
CC: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, DarkNovaNick@...il.com,
linux-lvm@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: do not disable ext4 discards on first discard failure? [was:
Re: dm snapshot: ignore discards issued to the snapshot-origin target]
On 5/2/11 8:05 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2011, Mike Snitzer wrote:
...
>> The blkdev_issue_discard() change you propose could be fine (mask
>> EOPNOTSUPP return if device advertises support for discards) -- though
>> Eric said we shouldn't ever say we did something when we didn't.
>
> Exactly, so we should not say that it is not supported when it is, but
> we just hit the "wrong" part of the device:) I would just very much like
> to keep the abstraction of having one consistent device underneath the
> file system and not deal with several devices, or regions with different
> behaviour in the file system itself (let the pixies underneath deal with
> that, after all not all of us are btrfs:))
I still think we need to stick with the simple rule: "EOPNOTSUPP returned for a particular bio means that it is not supported for that particular bio" - I don't know what else we can do, without creating an ambiguity...
This does, however, suck for the layer calling in to a complex device.
What is the overhead for sending discard bios down to a device that does not support it?
-Eric
--
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