[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <402cc90ce5defa81c937c3fcd09de1f6497459ee.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 23:02:12 +0000
From: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
To: "jaegeuk@...nel.org" <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@....com>,
"linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"hans@...tronix.com" <hans@...tronix.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>,
"chao@...nel.org" <chao@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: preserve direct write semantics when buffering
is forced
On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 15:14 -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/20, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 01:20:04PM +0100, Hans Holmberg wrote:
> > > A) Supporting proper direct writes for zoned block devices would
> > > be the best, but it is currently not supported (probably for
> > > a good but non-obvious reason). Would it be feasible to
> > > implement proper direct IO?
> >
> > I don't think why not. In many ways direct writes to zoned devices
> > should be easier than non-direct writes.
> >
> > Any comments from the maintainers why the direct I/O writes to
> > zoned
> > devices are disabled? I could not find anything helpful in the
> > comments
> > or commit logs.
>
> The direct IO wants to overwrite the data on the same block address,
> while
> zoned device does not support it?
Surely that is not the case with LFS mode, doesn't it ? Otherwise, even
buffered overwrites would have an issue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists