[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240220083119.GD13785@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:31:19 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: 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, dchinner@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, nilay@...ux.ibm.com,
ritesh.list@...il.com, Alan Adamson <alan.adamson@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] nvme: Atomic write support
Thanks for writing a good commit message!
> NVMe namespaces may define an atomic boundary, whereby no atomic guarantees
> are provided for a write which straddles this per-lba space boundary. The
> block layer merging policy is such that no merges may occur in which the
> resultant request would straddle such a boundary.
>
> Unlike SCSI, NVMe specifies no granularity or alignment rules.
Well, the boundary really is sort of a granularity and alignment,
isn't it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists