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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:06:16 -0400
From:	Mike Snitzer <>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Shaohua Li <>, Vivek Goyal <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2]block: handle merged discard request

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Martin K. Petersen
<> wrote:
>>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig <> writes:
>>> There are several additional commands in the pipeline where the 1:1
>>> mapping between DMA size and block range is invalid. I want to get
>>> rid of the 1:1 assumption in general so we can handle any command
>>> without these evil workarounds.
> Christoph> What's the progress on getting these issues sorted out?
> This has bitrotted for a while. I'll put it on my list. I should finally
> have some bandwidth again next week...

Hey Martin,

I rebased (and fixed/tested) your writesame patches on v3.6-rc2 +
jens' for-linus branch, the git tree is available here:

I've also made the updated patchset available here:

Should the writesame patches come before any discard merge or 1:1 DMA
and block range assumption fixes?
NOTE (for others besides martin):
removes all the discard merge hacks; I think it provides a clean
baseline to then layer discard merge support back in -- but maybe
that's a flawed strategy?

Could be I've wasted a few hours by rebasing these patches...
regardless, it would be great if you could share what your plans are.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists