On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:05:57PM -0500, Black_David@xxxxxxx wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 19:31 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > I think this is the crux of the issue. IMO, it's not much of a > standard > > > when the spirit of the standard is to allow everyone to implement > > > different, non-deterministic behaviour.... > > > > I disagree. The discard request is a _hint_ from the upper layers, and > > the storage device can act on that hint as it sees fit. There's > nothing > > wrong with that; it doesn't make it "not much of a standard". > > Bingo! That is exactly the spirit and thinking behind the UNMAP > proposal. While that may be, it's hardly the spirit that Ric (at least) has been promoting with dire warnings about how 'Enterprise class' customers will react if Linux does the wrong thing for EMC arrays with discard/trim/unmap. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
