On 25.06.2020 21:53, Matias Bjørling wrote:
On 25/06/2020 21.39, Javier González wrote:
On 25.06.2020 16:48, Matias Bjørling wrote:
On 25/06/2020 15.04, Matias Bjørling wrote:
On 25/06/2020 14.21, Javier González wrote:
From: Javier González <javier.gonz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
This patchset extends zoned device functionality on top of the
existing
v3 ZNS patchset that Keith sent last week.
Patches 1-5 are zoned block interface and IOCTL additions to
expose ZNS
values to user-space. One major change is the addition of a new zone
management IOCTL that allows to extend zone management commands with
flags. I recall a conversation in the mailing list from early
this year
where a similar approach was proposed by Matias, but never made it
upstream. We extended the IOCTL here to align with the
comments in that
thread. Here, we are happy to get sign-offs by anyone that contributed
to the thread - just comment here or on the patch.
The original patchset is available here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/21/419
We wanted to wait posting our updated patches until the base
patches were upstream. I guess the cat is out of the bag. :)
For the open/finish/reset patch, you'll want to take a look at
the original patchset, and apply the feedback from that thread
to your patch. Please also consider the users of these
operations, e.g., dm, scsi, null_blk, etc. The original patchset
has patches for that.
Please disregard the above - I forgot that the original patchset
actually went upstream.
You're right that we discussed (I at least discussed it internally
with Damien, but I can't find the mail) having one mgmt issuing
the commands. We didn't go ahead and added it at that point due to
ZNS still being in a fluffy state.
Does the proposed IOCTL align with the use cases you have in mind? I'm
happy to take it in a different series if you want to add patches to it
for other drivers (scsi, null_blk, etc.).
I think the ioctl makes sense. I wanted to have it like that
originally. I'm still thinking through if it covers the short-term
cases for the upcoming TPs.
Yes. You can see that some of this is intended to support at least one
of the TPs that are in the TWG. It is also suitable for a couple TPs we
are working on internally and expect to bring to the group.
But please, do make sure it covers TPs that you know will be shared in
the TWG.
Javier
