On 5/19/22 20:47, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 5/19/22 16:34, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 19/05/2022 05:19, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 5/19/22 12:12, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 12:08:26PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 5/18/22 00:34, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 10:10:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I'm a little surprised about all this activity.
I though the conclusion at LSF/MM was that for Linux itself there
is very little benefit in supporting this scheme. It will massively
fragment the supported based of devices and applications, while only
having the benefit of supporting some Samsung legacy devices.
FWIW,
That wasn't my impression from that LSF/MM session, but once the
videos become available, folks can decide for themselves.
There was no real discussion about zone size constraint on the zone
storage BoF. Many discussions happened in the hallway track though.
Right so no direct clear blockers mentioned at all during the BoF.
Nor any clear OK.
So what about creating a device-mapper target, that's taking npo2 drives and
makes them po2 drives for the FS layers? It will be very similar code to
dm-linear.
+1
This will simplify the support for FSes, at least for the initial drop (if
accepted).
And more importantly, this will also allow addressing any potential
problem with user space breaking because of the non power of 2 zone size.
Seconded (or maybe thirded).
The changes to support npo2 in the block layer are pretty simple, and
really I don't have an issue with those.
Then adding a device-mapper target transforming npo2 drives in po2 block
devices should be pretty trivial.
And once that is in you can start arguing with the the FS folks on
whether to implement it natively.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew
Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman
