[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231109151531.GC32432@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:15:31 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
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, 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
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:28:04PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> 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 would suggest that we don't try to claim any atomic write capability
if this is not a logical block as such devices are completely useless.
In fact I'd add a big warning to the kernel log if a device claims this,
as this breaks all the implicit assumptions that a single logical
block write is atomic.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists