linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 01/12] block: Introduce queue limits and sysfs for copy-offload 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240605081749.GB18688@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:17:49 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, bvanassche@....org, david@...morbit.com,
	damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, anuj20.g@...sung.com,
	joshi.k@...sung.com, nitheshshetty@...il.com, gost.dev@...sung.com,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 01/12] block: Introduce queue limits and sysfs for
 copy-offload support

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:05:03AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 6/4/24 06:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 06:43:56AM +0000, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>>> Also most block limits are in kb.  Not that I really know why we are
>>>> doing that, but is there a good reason to deviate from that scheme?
>>>>
>>> We followed discard as a reference, but we can move to kb, if that helps
>>> with overall readability.
>>
>> I'm not really sure what is better.  Does anyone remember why we did
>> the _kb version?  Either way some amount of consistency would be nice.
>>
> If memory serves correctly we introduced the _kb versions as a convenience 
> to the user; exposing values in 512 bytes increments tended
> to be confusing, especially when it comes to LBA values (is the size in 
> units of hardware sector size? 512 increments? kilobytes?)

Maybe.  In the meantime I did a bit more of research, and only
max_sectors and max_hw_sectors are reported in kb.  chunk_sectors is
reported in 512 byte sectors, and everything else is reported in bytes.

So sticking to bytes is probably right, and I was wrong about "most block
limits above".  Sorry.