Re: support ranges TRIM for libata

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

 



On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:59:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I do like the fact that this is a lot simpler than the previous
> implementation but am not quite sure we want to deviate significantly
> from what we do for other commands (command translation).  Is it
> because fixing the existing implementation would involve invaisve
> changes including memory allocations?

The current implementation already has the issue of that it does
corrupt user data reliably if the using SG_IO for WRITE SAME commands.

Doing ranges using translation would turn into a nightmare because
ATA TRIM ranges are 16 bits long while SCSI UNAMP ranges are 32-bit,
so we effectively can't translated them without introducing a
non-standard hook between libata and scsi to communicate that
limit.  And once we're down that path we might as well just do the
right thing directly.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux