linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 05/10] block: Add core atomic write support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zhch-6XSPYxM4ku3@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:34:19 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.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, 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, willy@...radead.org,
	Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/10] block: Add core atomic write support

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 10:11:50AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 3/26/24 06:38, John Garry wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
> > index 1fe9a553c37b..4c775f4bdefe 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
> > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
> > +What:		/sys/block/<disk>/atomic_write_boundary_bytes
> > +Date:		February 2024
> > +Contact:	Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...cle.com>
> > +Description:
> > +		[RO] A device may need to internally split I/Os which
> > +		straddle a given logical block address boundary. In that
> > +		case a single atomic write operation will be processed as
> > +		one of more sub-operations which each complete atomically.
> 
> 		    or

If *or* was meant, wouldn't it be better just to say one or more
operations may be processed as one atomically in this situation?

  Luis