[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200326092935.GA6478@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 02:29:35 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
bob.liu@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com,
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,
bvanassche@....org, dhowells@...hat.com, asml.silence@...il.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for
REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:23:33PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Christoph,
>
> > I am very much against that for the following reason:
> >
> > - the current REQ_OP_DISCARD is purely a hint, and implementations can
> > (and do) choose to ignore it
> >
> > - REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES is an actual data integrity operation with
> > everything that entails
>
> If you want to keep emphasis on the "integrity operation" instead of the
> provisioning aspect, would you expect REQ_ALLOCATE (which may or may not
> zero blocks) to be considered a deterministic operation or a
> non-deterministic one? Should this depend on whether the device
> guarantees zeroing when provisioning blocks or not?
That's why I don't like the whole flags game very much. I'd rather
have REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES as the integrity operation that gurantees
zeroing, and a REQ_ALLOCATE that doesn't guarantee zeroing, just some
deterministic state of the blocks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists