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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 22:03:34 -0500 From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, ming.lei@...hat.com, osandov@...com, jthumshirn@...e.de, minwoo.im.dev@...il.com, damien.lemoal@....com, andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, hare@...e.com, tj@...nel.org, ajay.joshi@....com, sagi@...mberg.me, dsterba@...e.com, chaitanya.kulkarni@....com, bvanassche@....org, dhowells@...hat.com, asml.silence@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] block: Add support for REQ_OP_ASSIGN_RANGE operation Hi Kirill! > The patch adds a new blkdev_issue_assign_range() primitive, which is > rather similar to existing blkdev_issue_{*} api. Also, a new queue > limit.max_assign_range_sectors is added. I am not so keen on the assign_range name. What's wrong with "allocate"? But why introduce a completely new operation? Isn't this essentially a write zeroes with BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP flag set? If the zeroing aspect is perceived to be a problem we could add a BLKDEV_ZERO_ALLOCATE flag (or BLKDEV_ZERO_ANCHOR since that's the terminology used in SCSI). -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists