[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200828072253.GA1331347@apples.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:22:53 +0200
From: Klaus Jensen <its@...elevant.dk>
To: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
Cc: Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] null_blk: add support for max open/active zone limit
for zoned devices
On Aug 28 07:06, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2020/08/27 22:50, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > +static blk_status_t null_finish_zone(struct nullb_device *dev, struct blk_zone *zone)
> > +{
> > + if (zone->type == BLK_ZONE_TYPE_CONVENTIONAL)
> > + return BLK_STS_IOERR;
> > +
> > + switch (zone->cond) {
> > + case BLK_ZONE_COND_FULL:
> > + /* finish operation on full is not an error */
> > + return BLK_STS_OK;
> > + case BLK_ZONE_COND_EMPTY:
> > + if (!null_manage_zone_resources(dev, zone))
>
> OK. So you are hitting a fuzzy case here that is not actually well described in
> the standards. That is, does finishing an empty zone necessarilly imply a
> temporary transition through imp open ? Which you are assuming is a yes here.
> Personally, I would say that is not necessary, but no strong feeling either way.
>
For ZNS, the spec is pretty clear that ZSE to ZSF is a legal direct
transition. So I don't think the transition should be allowed to fail
due to a lack of resources.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists