linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] bio: Introduce LightNVM payload

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 May 2015 00:21:53 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Matias Bj?rling <m@...rling.me>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, axboe@...com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, keith.busch@...el.com,
	javier@...etta.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] bio: Introduce LightNVM payload

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:58:51PM +0200, Matias Bj?rling wrote:
> >Can you explain why this needs to be done on a per-bio instead of a
> >per-request level?  I don't really think a low-level driver should add
> >fields to struct bio as that can be easily remapped.
> 
> When a bio is submitted through the block layer, it can be merged/splitted
> on going through the block layer. Thus, we don't know the number of physical
> addresses that must be mapped before its on the other side.

For any sort of passthrough bios that should not be the case.  It's not
for BLOCK_PC, it's not for my new pass through NVMe commands and I don't
think it should be in this case.
--
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/