Re: support ranges TRIM for libata

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

 



On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:35:06AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> I'm certainly not saying we blindly follow t10, but I believe their
> intent is to issue the next command from the completion of the first
> (we can do this using qc->complete_fn, like atapi_request_sense).  That
> way we don't get any tag problems because there's only one command
> outstanding at once; reusing the qc means no allocation issues either.
> 
> The t10 approach does mean the SG_IO problem is actually fixable rather
> than simply erroring out.

It would be sort of fixable, but with a lot of hackery.

> That's up to you ... from the point of view of code documenting itself,
> forming the ATA_16 TRIM in sd and not doing any satl transformation is
> easier for others to follow, but if it's going to cause more code, I'm
> only marginal on the advantages of easier to follow code.

I tried this earlier before giving up on it because it looked to ugly.
But I can complete that version of it and post it for people to compare.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux