On 2/4/22 10:58, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
On 2/4/22 12:24 AM, Javier González wrote:
[ .. ]
For a software-only solution, we have experimented with something
similar to the nvme-debug code tha Mikulas is proposing. Adam pointed to
the nvme-loop target as an alternative and this seems to work pretty
nicely. I do not believe there should be many changes to support copy
offload using this.
If QEMU is so incompetent then we need to add every big feature into
the NVMeOF test target so that we can test it better ? is that what
you are proposing ? since if we implement one feature, it will be
hard to nack any new features that ppl will come up with
same rationale "with QEMU being slow and hard to test race
conditions etc .."
How would you use qemu for bare-metal testing?
and if that is the case why we don't have ZNS NVMeOF target
memory backed emulation ? Isn't that a bigger and more
complicated feature than Simple Copy where controller states
are involved with AENs ?
ZNS kernel code testing is also done on QEMU, I've also fixed
bugs in the ZNS kernel code which are discovered on QEMU and I've not
seen any issues with that. Given that simple copy feature is way smaller
than ZNS it will less likely to suffer from slowness and etc (listed
above) in QEMU.
my point is if we allow one, we will be opening floodgates and we need
to be careful not to bloat the code unless it is _absolutely
necessary_ which I don't think it is based on the simple copy
specification.
I do have a slightly different view on the nvme target code; it should
provide the necessary means to test the nvme host code.
And simple copy is on of these features, especially as it will operate
as an exploiter of the new functionality.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
