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:	Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:52:03 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <>,,
	Lukas Czerner <>
Subject: Re: Some interesting input from a flash manufacturer

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Ted" == Ted Ts'o <> 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.

But min_io currently means the smallest size that we're allowed to
write, correct?  And the flash page size could be 128k and 512 byte
writes might be perfectly OK; it's just that writes are more optimal
at 128k, and would be even more optimal at the erbase block size of 4
megs.  That's why I'm not sure it makes sense to use the existing
fields, since it will confuse file system utilities that are reading
those fields.

   	     	       	       	      - Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists