[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dc89c70e-4931-baaf-c450-6801c200c1d7@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:02:44 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>,
hch@....de, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc: jaegeuk@...nel.org, agk@...hat.com, gost.dev@...sung.com,
snitzer@...nel.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de,
matias.bjorling@....com, Johannes.Thumshirn@....com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
pankydev8@...il.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/13] support zoned block devices with non-power-of-2
zone sizes
On 9/30/22 14:24, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Noted. I'll find some time to review this as well separately, once we're
> on the other side of the merge window.
Hi Jens,
Now that we are on the other side of the merge window: do you perhaps
want Pankaj to repost this patch series? From what I have heard in
several fora (JEDEC, SNIA) all flash storage vendors except one (WDC)
are in favor of a contiguous LBA space and hence are in favor of
supporting zone sizes that are not a power of two.
As you may know in JEDEC we are working on standardizing zoned storage
for UFS devices. We (JEDEC JC-64.1 committee members) would like to know
whether or not we should require that the UFS zone size should be a
power of two.
Thank you,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists