linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: don't call f2fs_issue_discard_timeout() when discard_cmd_cnt is 0 in f2fs_put

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:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 21:50:08 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To:     Yangtao Li <frank.li@...o.com>, jaegeuk@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: don't call f2fs_issue_discard_timeout() when
 discard_cmd_cnt is 0 in f2fs_put_super()

On 2022/12/12 21:05, Yangtao Li wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> static inline bool f2fs_realtime_discard_enable(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) {
>> 	return (test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) && f2fs_hw_support_discard(sbi)) ||
>> 					f2fs_hw_should_discard(sbi);
>> }
> 
>> It looks the logic is changed?
> 
> For a storage device that does not support discard, and we have not actually
> issued any discard command. I don't think it is necessary and f2fs should not
> be equipped with trim markers.

The difference here is, if we use f2fs_realtime_discard_enable() in
f2fs_put_super(), we will only write checkpoint w/ CP_TRIMMED flag
when discard option is enable and device supports discard.

But actually, if discard option is disabled, we still needs to give
put_super() a chance to write checkpoint w/ CP_TRIMMED flag.

Thanks,

> 
> Thx,
> Yangtao