> > It is either/or choice. If the interface isn't fixed NOW, the existing > > flawed zeroed-page-allocation interface gets into RHEL > > That's a false dichotomy. You might see an either apply this hack now > or support the interface choice with RHEL, but upstream has the option > to fix stuff correctly. RHEL has never needed my blessing to apply > random crap to their kernel before ... why is this patch any different? We can't apply non-upstream patches (except few exceptions such as dm-raid45). It makes sense, non-upstream patches have smaller test coverage. > And the rest of this rubbish is based on that false premise. It might > help you to take off your SCSI antipathy and see this as a system > problem: it actually originates in block and spills out from there. > Thus it requires a system solution. > > James Imagine this: I take a FPGA PCI board, I design a storage controller on it and this controller will need 3 pages to process a discard request. Now I say: I refuse to allocate these 3 pages in the driver because the driver would look ugly --- instead, I demand that everyone in the Linux kernel who creates a discard request must attach 3 pages to the request for my driver. Do you think it is correct behavior? Would you accept such a driver? I guess you wouldn't! But this is the same thing that you are doing with SCSI. Now lets take it a bit further and I say "I may clean up the driver for my controller one day, when I do it, I remove that 3-page requirement --- and then, everyone who allocated those pages will have to change his code and remove the allocations". And this is what you are intending to do with SCSI. Mikulas -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
