linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v1 01/01] dm-lightnvm: An open FTL for open firmware SSDs

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 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]

Message-ID: <20140321153749.GA17155@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:37:49 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Matias Bj??rling <m@...rling.me>
Cc:	snitzer@...hat.com, agk@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	neilb@...e.de, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 01/01] dm-lightnvm: An open FTL for open firmware
 SSDs

Just curious:  why do you think implementing this as a block remapper
inside device mapper is a better idea than as a blk-mq driver?

At the request layer you already get a lot of infrastucture for all the
queueing infrastructure for free, as well as all kinds of other helpers.
And the driver never remaps bios anyway but always submits new ones as
far as I can tell.

Does it even make sense to expose the underlying devices as block
devices?  It surely would help to send this together with a driver
that you plan to use it on top of.

--
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/