Also, will it be usefully to add a "get...()" function for num_secure_erase_bios? Let's say get_num_secure_erase_bios(struct dm_target &ti); As it's done for num_discard_bios... ----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "snitzer" <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> Кому: "Denis Semakin" Копия: "dm-devel" <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx> Отправленные: Пятница, 23 Март 2018 г 18:38:44 Тема: Re: dm table: add support for secure erase forwarding [was: Re: Adaptation secure erase forwarding for 4.1x kernels] On Fri, Mar 23 2018 at 10:47am -0400, Denis Semakin wrote: > >I'd feel safer about having targets opt-in with setting (a new) > >ti->num_secure_erase_bios. > May be add a new field "bool secure_erase_supported:1" in dm_target structure instead? > And set up it "true" in constructor for linear targets. No, that type of change is for a DM target to support a feature even if the underlying device doesn't. As my previous email elaborated, ti->num_secure_erase_bios is the right way forward. Mike -- Best regards, Denis Semakin Software Developer Open Mobile Platform -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
