[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615212414.GA5410@sucs.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:24:14 +0100
From: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...il.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...com, sitsofe@...oo.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
Kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] block: correctly fallback for zeroout
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:14:50PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
>
> Christoph> And I'd much prefer to get this right now. It's not like
> Christoph> this is recently introduced behavior.
>
> Unfortunately there are quite a few callers of blkdev_issue_discard()
> these days. Some of them ignore the return value but not all of
> them. I'm concerned about causing all sorts of breakage if we suddenly
> start returning errors various places in the stable trees.
This is true. We have problematic behaviour in stable kernels today so
there needs to be a "least intrusive" workaround which changes the
behaviour as little as possible for those. I would say that means
maintaining the current -EOPNOTSUPP behaviour in those kernels
regardless of what goes into master.
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists