On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 03:15:02PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 2/4/22 10:58, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > > > 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. The threshold to determine if the in-kernel fabrics target ought to implement a feature should be if it's useful in a production. Are users interested in copying data without using fabric bandwidth? Yes. Does anyone want a mocked up ZNS that has all the contraints and none of the benefits? No. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
