On 04/13/2016 05:22 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 04/13/2016 07:23 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So I wonder if we should plumb this into blkdev_issue_zeroout(), not
blk_issue_discard().
That's an excellent question. Let's take a step back and look at the
functionality that is exposed to user space. What should the behavior of
the BLKDISCARD and BLKSECDISCARD ioctls be if the start and/or end
sectors are not aligned? My patch ensures that these ioctls do something
meaningful if the start and/or end sector are not aligned on a discard
boundary. Is that the behavior we want or should rather we make these
ioctls fail if the start and/or end sectors are not aligned?
Guess what, I've run into the same issue as I've tried to adapt
blkdev_issue_discard for SMR drives.
There are always some areas on SMR drives which do not necessarily
expose a discard functionality, so the same problem applies to that, too.
Lightning talk as LSF?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
