[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1988e22-c472-4de5-97ce-1f977df56605@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:22:03 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org,
sagi@...mberg.me, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, djwong@...nel.org, 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,
agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org, mpatocka@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, hare@...e.de,
Alan Adamson <alan.adamson@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] nvme: Atomic write support
On 18/06/2024 07:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Only NVMe supports an LBA space boundary, so that part is specific to NVMe.
>>
>> Regardless, the block layer already should ensure that the atomic write
>> length and boundary is respected. nvme_valid_atomic_write() is just an
>> insurance policy against the block layer or some other component not doing
>> its job.
>>
>> For SCSI, the device would error - for example - if the atomic write length
>> was larger than the device supported. NVMe silently just does not execute
>> the write atomically in that scenario, which we must avoid.
> It might be worth to expand the comment to include this information to
> help future readers.
OK, will do. I have been asked this more than once now.
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists