Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:44:23 +0300
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>From b25b9a499f255ee5999c219525d82ef40382318c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:41:38 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] block: Add secure discard
Secure discard is the same as discard except that all copies
of the discarded sectors (perhaps created by garbage collection)
must also be erased.
That's not an awfully informative changelog.
From a quick peek at the code it seems that you took your earlier
design sketch:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 02:10:06PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
Needs a bio flag, a request flag, setup the request flag based on the
bio flag, prevent merging secure and non-secure discards, prevent drivers
doing non-secure discards for secure discards.
Seems like a lot of little changes for something that no one wants.
Shouldn't it wait for someone to need it first?
and changed your mind and implemented it.
Is that a correct interpretation?
Yes. It does allude to that in "[PATCH V3 0/5] Add MMC erase and secure erase V3"
i.e.
Changes from V2
- move the addition of BLKSECDISCARD to a separate patch and implement it
using I/O requests
- move the MMC support of secure discard to a separate patch and support
the secure discard I/O request
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
