[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75f08d51-e4e0-4899-8258-81470c044134@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:24:42 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, sagi@...mberg.me, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
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-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ming.lei@...hat.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
bvanassche@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] block: Limit atomic write IO size according to
atomic_write_max_sectors
On 14/02/2024 07:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:15:08AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> I'm note sure if that would be better in the fops.c patch (or not added)
>
> We'll need the partition check. If you want to get fancy you could
> also add the atomic boundary offset thing there as a partitions would
> make devices with that "feature" useful again, although I'd prefer to
> only deal with that if the need actually arises.
Yeah, that is my general philosophy about possible weird HW.
>
> The right place is in the core infrastructure, the bdev patch is just
> a user of the block infrastructure. bdev really are just another
> file system and a consumer of the block layer APIs.
ok, I'll try to find a good place for it.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists