On 2024/02/29 15:25, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 2/29/24 14:45, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 2024/02/29 14:39, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c b/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c >>> index 26af5ab7d7c1..d4d6b3056410 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c >>> @@ -734,6 +734,8 @@ static int sd_zbc_check_capacity(struct scsi_disk >>> *sdkp, unsigned char *buf, >>> (unsigned long long)sdkp->capacity, >>> (unsigned long long)max_lba + 1); >>> sdkp->capacity = max_lba + 1; >>> + if (sdkp->capacity > 0xffffffff) >>> + sdkp->device->use_16_for_rw = 1; >> >> While correct, I do not think that this change is needed. With the first hunk in >> place, a TYPE_ZBC device will be forced to use RW-16, regardless of the device >> capacity. > > The first hunk of this patch is for ATA devices only. I want to make sure that > .use_16_for_rw is set for non-ATA devices if there are LBAs that need more than > 32 bits. I missed that ! OK. So, you want to keep RW-16 forced for HDDs, but only have RW-10 for zoned UFS devices, is this correct ? If it is, then question: what is the device type reported by zoned UFS drives ? If it is TYPE_ZBC, then we should follow SBC specs and thus have RW-16 mandatory. Is UFS, again, not following completely the scsi specifications ? I would really prefer to not spread this setting between scsi sd and libata-scsi. I also do not like that your change for the scsi side depends on the capacity instead on the device type. Small capacity ZBC drives can be created with scsi_debug or tcmu-runner zbc handler, and these should use RW-16 as per the specifications too. > > Thanks, > > Bart. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
