On 9/12/24 10:53 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 9/12/24 17:32, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 9/12/24 10:25 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> an entirely different command leading to applications breaking when >>>> just using the command and the hardware doesn't support it. >>>> >>>> Nacked-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> >>>> >>>> to this incomplete API that will just create incompatbilities. >>> >>> That's fine, I'd rather take your nack than humouring the idea >>> of having a worse api than it could be. >> >> How about we just drop 6-8 for now, and just focus on getting the actual >> main discard operation in? That's (by far) the most important anyway, >> and we can always add the write-zeroes bit later. > > That's surely an option, and it's naturally up to you. Just trying to make forward progress - and since the actual discard is the most interesting bit (imho), seems silly to gate it on the latter bits. > But to be clear, unless there are some new good arguments, I don't > buy those requested changes for 6-8 and refuse to go with it, that's > just creating a mess of flags cancelling each other down the line. That's something to hash out, might be easier to do in person at LPC next week. For now I'll just drop 6-8. -- Jens Axboe
