[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240605083140.GB20984@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:31:40 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
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 v7 4/9] block: Add core atomic write support
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 02:31:04PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> We currently use chunk_sectors for quite some different things, most
> notably zones boundaries, NIOIB, raid stripes etc.
> So I don't have an issue adding another use-case for it.
So as zone as a device supports atomic/untorn writes you limit all
I/O including reads to the boundaries? I can't see how that would
ever make sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists