[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220519031237.sw45lvzrydrm7fpb@garbanzo>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 20:12:37 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
pankydev8@...il.com, gost.dev@...sung.com,
jiangbo.365@...edance.com, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
dsterba@...e.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v4 00/13] support non power of 2 zoned devices
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 12:08:26PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 5/18/22 00:34, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 10:10:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> I'm a little surprised about all this activity.
> >>
> >> I though the conclusion at LSF/MM was that for Linux itself there
> >> is very little benefit in supporting this scheme. It will massively
> >> fragment the supported based of devices and applications, while only
> >> having the benefit of supporting some Samsung legacy devices.
> >
> > FWIW,
> >
> > That wasn't my impression from that LSF/MM session, but once the
> > videos become available, folks can decide for themselves.
>
> There was no real discussion about zone size constraint on the zone
> storage BoF. Many discussions happened in the hallway track though.
Right so no direct clear blockers mentioned at all during the BoF.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists