[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZK0RKkXFaQSotxVl@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 01:22:02 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@...aspace.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@...il.com>,
Matias Bjorling <Matias.Bjorling@....com>,
gost.dev@...sung.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@....com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] ublk: add opcode offsets for DRV_IN/DRV_OUT
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:23:40AM +0200, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
> Yet most on-the-wire protocols for actual hardware does support this
> some way or another.
Supports what? Passthrough? No.
> I somewhat agree in the sense that for consistency, we should either
> move zone management commands to the DRV_OUT range OR move report_zones
> out of this special range and just next to the zone management
> operations. I like the latter option better, and I would love to see the
> block layer do the same at some point. It feels backwards that
> report_zones get special treatment all over the place.
DRV_IN/OUT is purely a Linux concept. It doesn't make any sense for
a wire protocol.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists