Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:51:38 -0800
Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleksii Kurochko <olkuroch@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20201113084702.4164912-1-hch@lst.de>
References: <20201113084702.4164912-1-hch@lst.de>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0

Hi Jens,

this series resurrects a patch from Martin to properly split the flag
indicating a disk has been set read-only by the hardware vs the userspace
policy set through the BLKROSET ioctl.


Looks good,

Doesn't this miss restoring the clear disk ro in nvme?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

References:
- split hard read-only vs read-only policy
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

Prev by Date: Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] iosched: Add i10 I/O Scheduler
Previous by thread: Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
Next by thread: Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ATA RAID] [IDE] [Linux Wireless] [Linux Kernel] [ATH6KL] [Linux Bluetooth] [Linux Netdev] [Kernel Newbies] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Device Mapper]

Powered by Linux