On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 08:00:24AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:42:17AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > A note to the virtio committee: eMMC is the worst of all the currently > > active storage standards by a large margin. It defines very strange > > ad-hoc interfaces that expose very specific internals and often provides > > very poor abstractions. > > Are we talking about the lifetime feature here? UFS has it too right? Ok, the wide margin above ignores UFS, which has a lot of the same issues as EMMC, just a little less cruft. > It's not too late to > change things if necessary... it would be great if you could provide > more of the feedback on this on the TC mailing list. I think the big main issue here is that it just forwards an awkwardly specific concept through virtio. If we want a virtio feature it really needs to stand a lone and be properly documented without referring to external specifications that are not openly available. > > It would be great it you could reach out to the > > wider storage community before taking bad ideas from the eMMC standard > > and putting it into virtio. > > Noted. It would be great if we had more representation from the storage > community ... meanwhile what would a good forum for this be? > linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ? At least for linux, yes.
