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  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 <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, neilb@...e.de,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2]block: handle merged discard request

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> 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:
https://github.com/snitm/linux/tree/writesame

I've also made the updated patchset available here:
http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/upstream/writesame/series.html

Should the writesame patches come before any discard merge or 1:1 DMA
and block range assumption fixes?
NOTE (for others besides martin):
http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/upstream/writesame/0001-block-Clean-up-merge-logic.patch
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.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists