Re: [External] [LSF/MM/BPF BoF] Session for Zoned Storage 2023

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

 



On 1/9/23 6:39?PM, Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/9/23 4:20?PM, Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 3:00 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My point here that we could summarize:
>>>>>> (1) what features already implemented and supported,
>>>>>> (2) what features are under implementation and what is progress,
>>>>>> (3) what features need to be implemented yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have we implemented everything already? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Standards are full of features that are not useful in a general purpose
>>>>> system. So we likely never will implement everything. We never did for
>>>>> SCSI and ATA and never will either.
>>>> Indeed, and that's a very important point. Some people read specs and
>>>> find things that aren't in the Linux driver (any spec, not a specific
>>>> one), and think they need to be added. No. We only add them if they make
>>>> sense, both in terms of use cases, but also as long as they can get
>>>> implemented cleanly. Parts of basically any spec is garbage and don't
>>>> necessarily fit within the given subsystem either.
>>>>
>>>> The above would make me worried about patches coming from anyone with
>>>> that mindset.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. We already have discussion about garbage in spec. :)
>>> So, what would we like finally implement and what never makes sense to do?
>>> Should we identify really important stuff for implementation?
>>
>> Well if you did have that discussion, then it seemed you got nothing
>> from it. Because asking that kind of question is EXACTLY what I'm saying
>> is the opposite of what should be done. If there's a demand for a
>> feature, then it can be looked at and ultimately implemented if it makes
>> sense. You're still talking about proactively finding features and
>> implementing them "just in case they are needed", which is very much the
>> opposite and wrong approach, and how any kind of software ends up being
>> bloated, slow, and buggy/useless.
>>
> 
> I simply tried to suggest some space for this discussion and nothing
> more. If all important features have been implemented already and
> nobody would like to discuss new feature(s), then we can simply
> exclude this topic from the list.

If something is missing and there's a bof/session, then someone will
bring it up. Fishing for things to implement is not a good idea.

-- 
Jens Axboe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux