On Wed, May 04 2016 at 11:11am -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 08:38:03PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Commit 38f25255330 ("block: add __blkdev_issue_discard") incorrectly
> > disallowed the return of -EOPNOTSUPP if the device didn't support
> > discard (or secure discard).
>
> I assume dm relied in this? The different handling of early vs
> late -EOPNOTSUPP is the old code is rather odd, so when restoring
> it I'd rather have a comment explaining why the different handling
> is needed.
It isn't needed by DM. The device-mapper-test-suite's thinp discard
tests did catch the change in behaviour but that is besides the point.
Why do you feel it makes sense to mask the fact that discards issued to
a device that doesn't support them is unsupported? Especially when it
is established behavior of the blkdev_issue_discard() interface to do
so.
I see no point in breaking established behaviour. If you do then please
explain.
--
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
