[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ba55a23-40d2-4a27-be15-550c247018d8@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:50:40 +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-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
On 20/02/2024 08:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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?
NVMe does indeed have the boundary rule, but it is not really the same
as SCSI granularity and alignment.
Anyway, I can word that statement to be clearer.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists