On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:09:05PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > Thanks for the reply. > > > This can be simplified with min_not_zero(). > > Ok, I will do it in the next version. > > > It's worth including a comment here that the discard and secure erase > > limits are combined because the Linux block layer only has one limit > > value. If the block layer supported independent limit values we wouldn't > > need to do this. > > Ok. > > I'll send a new version once we agree on the max_secure_erase_seg = 0 scenario. > Do you have an opinion on that? > Do you think that using sg_elems as the number of secure erase/discard > segments when the value in the virtio config is 0 is good enough? > Okay, I have replied in the max_secure_erase_seg sub-thread. I think probing the device should fail if the value is 0. There are no existing non-compliant devices that we need to be compatible with - let's encourage device implementors to report usable max_secure_erase_seg values. Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
