linux-ext4 - Re: Some interesting input from a flash manufacturer

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 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:	Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:44:28 -0500
From:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Some interesting input from a flash manufacturer

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> writes:

Ted> As far as the /sys/block/XXX/queue/* framework, certainly.  It's
Ted> not clear, however, whether or not we should use entirely new
Ted> parameters, or try to reuse the existing parameters.  For example,
Ted> would it be better to use optimal_io_size for the flash page size,
Ted> or the erase block size?

If we were to use the existing fields we'd probably set min_io to the
flash page size and optimal_io to the erase block size.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering
--
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