On 03.11.2020 16:26, hch@xxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:10:19PM +0100, Javier Gonzalez wrote:
One question here is that we are preparing a RFC for a io_uring passthru
using the block device. Based on this discussion, it seems to me that
you see this more suitable through the char device.
Does it make sense that we post this RFC using the block device? It
would be helpful to get early feedback before starting the char device.
If you wan to send the RFC with the block device that is ok. But I
think the separate character device is pretty trivial, at least for
NVM command set derived command sets like ZNS (for others we'll need
to finish the Command Set Independent Identify Namespace TP first).
Ok. Good to hear that we can do this in steps - I was worried that we
would need to cover this use case too in the beginning, which would
delay this work significantly.
I see that this does not make much sense for the other non-supported
features in this patch (i.e., !po2 zone size and zoc). Since this is
very much like PI today, is it OK we add these the same way (capacity 0)
and then move to the char device when ready?
I'd rath avoid adding more of that capacity 0 mess if we can. Especially
as the character device should be really easy to do.
Ok. We will move ahead with the char device and port current capacity 0
there in the series.
Thanks for the guidance Christoph!
