[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1lgvrqnmw.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 19:18:31 -0500
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tancheff@...gate.com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanya.kulkarni@...t.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: make ->no_write_same independent of reported ->max_ws_blocks
>>>>> "Nicolai" == Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com> writes:
Nicolai,
Nicolai> 1.) Do these older SCSI devices have a way to report
Nicolai> ->max_ws_blocks?
I'm afraid not.
Nicolai> 3.) Those older devices that have ->max_ws_blocks >
Nicolai> SD_MAX_WS10_BLOCKS but ->ws16 == ->ws10 == 0, i.e. the
Nicolai> heuristicated ones would always be given WRITE_SAME, not
Nicolai> WRITE_SAME_16 commands? C.f. sd_setup_write_same_cmnd():
Nicolai> if ->ws16 is not set, do WRITE_SAME. Isn't this a little
Nicolai> bit odd given that the reported -> max_ws_blocks would be
Nicolai> greater than SD_MAX_WS10_BLOCKS?
The check looks confusing because it caps the number of blocks to 0xFFFF
(the WRITE SAME(10) limit) for WRITE SAME(16) commands. Several older
devices accept the 16-byte command which allows for a bigger block range
but they only actually check the lower two bytes. This will cause data
corruption as parts of a block range may not be zeroed as requested.
FWIW, I'm in agreement with your patch to disable write same in libata
as a quick fix for 4.9.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists