[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160613082001.GA27508@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:20:01 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...com, sitsofe@...oo.com,
snitzer@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org, Kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] block: correctly fallback for zeroout
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 09:49:44PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >> What does the extra io_err buy us? Just have this function return an
> >> error. And then in blkdev_issue_discard if you get -EOPNOTSUPP you
> >> special case it there.
>
> Shaohua> The __blkdev_issue_discard returns -EOPNOTSUPP if disk doesn't
> Shaohua> support discard. in that case, blkdev_issue_discard doesn't
> Shaohua> return 0. blkdev_issue_discard only returns 0 if IO error is
> Shaohua> -EOPNOTSUPP.
>
> Oh, I see. The sanity checks are now in __blkdev_issue_discard() so
> there is no way to distinguish between -EOPNOTSUPP and the other
> -EOPNOTSUPP. *sigh*
We can move the sanity checks out. Or even better get rid of the
stupid behavior of ignoring the late -EOPNOTSUPP in this low level
helper and instead leaving it to the caller(s) that care. So far
the DM test suite seems to be the only one that does.
> I am OK with your patch as a stable fix but this really needs to be
> fixed up properly.
And I'd much prefer to get this right now. It's not like this is
recently introduced behavior.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists