> 17 июля 2014 г., в 15:14, Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@xxxxxxxxx> написал(а): > >> On 07/17/2014 11:46 AM, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: >>> On Thursday 17 July 2014 at 01:35:20, Edward Shishkin wrote: >>>> On 07/16/2014 01:24 PM, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: >>>> This needs your version of discard algorithm, because blocks inside extents of >>>> discard set are now marked as allocated. >>> >>> OK, I'll try to finish it in weekends.. >>> >>> >>>> BTW, have you dropped the case with erase unit size < block size? >>> >>> In my version all erase units are supported except ones which are >>> not a power of 2. We can support all erase units without exceptions, >>> if needed. >> I mean, when erase unit size < block size, erase unit size is forced to be >> exactly one block. Again, this is OK, but in this case any alignment (by >> definition less than one block then) will be dropped and represented as zero, >> and _this_ deserves a warning :) > > > The case of alignment % block_size != 0 deserves to disable discard > support, because in this case all this science with heads and tails > simply doesn't work. <bikeshed> If erase unit size == block size (or less than), then it's ok. We could in this case unconditionally consider a tail/head padding of 1 block without cutting tail/head in case of unavailable padding. But then again, </bikeshed> -- Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx / (Sent from a phone. Havoc may be wreaked on the formatting.) >> // btw, as you probably guess, these two patches are completely untested. >> >> Thanks, > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
