[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1r0mctv2d.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 20:28:04 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
kbusch@...nel.org, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
chandan.babu@...cle.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Prasad Singamsetty <prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/21] fs/bdev: Add atomic write support info to statx
Bart,
> Neither the SCSI SBC standard nor the NVMe standard defines a "minimum
> atomic write unit". So why to introduce something in the Linux kernel
> that is not defined in common storage standards?
>From SBC-5:
"The ATOMIC TRANSFER LENGTH GRANULARITY field indicates the minimum
transfer length for an atomic write command."
> I propose to leave out stx_atomic_write_unit_min from
> struct statx and also to leave out atomic_write_unit_min_sectors from
> struct queue_limits. My opinion is that we should not support block
> devices in the Linux kernel that do not write logical blocks atomically.
The statx values exist to describe the limits for I/Os sent using
RWF_ATOMIC and IOCB_ATOMIC. These limits may be different from other
reported values such as the filesystem block size and the logical block
size of the underlying device.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists