From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Verma, Vishal L" Subject: Re: Persistent memory interface Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:35:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1435008947.32433.82.camel@intel.com> References: <1434732620.32433.37.camel@intel.com> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <242292E1C0C9DB4BAF39B0B00D0A003F@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: "doug@easyco.com" Cc: "Busch, Keith" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org" , "luto@amacapital.net" , "axboe@fb.com" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "mpatocka@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "bp@alien8.de" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "hch@lst.de" List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 12:01 -0700, Doug Dumitru wrote: > ... while you are at it, you should consider supporting other binary > block sizes. > Hm, what would be the use case? We do support a variety of metadata sizes for protection information [1]. Apart from this, the standard block sizes of 512 and 4096 are the only ones Linux can support, so I'm not sure what you mean by other binary block sizes? -Vishal [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/17/947