[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200710134350.GA14704@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:43:50 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
bcrl@...ck.org, Damien.LeMoal@....com, asml.silence@...il.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Matias Bj??rling <mb@...htnvm.io>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Selvakumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] io_uring: add support for zone-append
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:59:45PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> > block doesn't work for the case of writes to files that don't have
> > to be aligned in any way. And that I think is the more broadly
> > applicable use case than zone append on block devices.
>
> But when can it happen that we do zone-append on a file (zonefs I
> asssume), and device returns a location (write-pointer essentially)
> which is not in multiple of 512b?
All the time. You open a file with O_APPEND. You write a record to
it of any kind of size, then the next write will return the position
it got written at, which can be anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists