[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1lecktuoo.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 20:48:06 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/21] block: Add fops atomic write support
Bart,
> Are there any SCSI devices that we care about that report an ATOMIC
> TRANSFER LENGTH GRANULARITY that is larger than a single logical
> block?
Yes.
Note that code path used inside a storage device to guarantee atomicity
of an entire I/O may be substantially different from the code path which
only offers an incremental guarantee at a single logical or physical
block level (to the extent that those guarantees are offered at all but
that's a different kettle of fish).
> I'm wondering whether we really have to support such devices.
Yes.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists