linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: add emulation for zone-append

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 12:45:39 +0900
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To:     David Fugate <david.fugate@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>,
        "Damien.LeMoal@....com" <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        "sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "johannes.thumshirn@....com" <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
        Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
        SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>,
        david.fugate@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: add emulation for zone-append

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:43:29PM -0600, David Fugate wrote:
> There were queries? My key takeaways were a maintainer NAK followed by
> instructions to make the Intel drive align with the driver by
> implementing NOIOB. While I disagree with the rejection as it appeared
> to be based entirely on politics, I can accept it as the quirk wasn't
> in the spec.

For the record, the suggestion provided, which you agreed to look into,
most broadly enables your hardware on Linux and was entirely to your
benefit. Not quite as dramatic as a political conspiracy.

You later responded with a technical argument against that suggestion;
however, your reason didn't add up, and that's where you left the
thread.
 
> It's not fair to make this same "your drive should align with the
> driver" demand of Samsung because we *are* talking about a spec'ed
> feature here. Technical critques of their patches and real performance
> degrades observed are fair game and objective; "your company did
> the nastiest possible move violating the normal NVMe procedures to make
> it optional" is not.

Sure, but you're cherry picking comments from the discussion. The
performance impact exists, and it's generally not acceptable from a
maintenance point to duplicate significant code without at least trying
to provide a common solution.