diff for duplicates of <1490804856.3551.3.camel@sandisk.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index d41042c..f25da53 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,12 +1,17 @@ On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 16:51 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 28/03/2017 20:50, Bart Van Assche wrote: -> > This means that just like the start and end of a discard must be aligned on a -> > discard_granularity boundary, WRITE SAME commands with the UNMAP bit set must +> > This means that just like the start and end of a discard must be aligne= +d on a +> > discard_granularity boundary, WRITE SAME commands with the UNMAP bit se= +t must > > also respect that granularity. I think this means that either -> > __blkdev_issue_zeroout() has to be modified such that it rejects unaligned -> > REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operations or that blk_bio_write_same_split() has to be -> > modified such that it generates REQ_OP_WRITEs for the unaligned start and tail. -> +> > __blkdev_issue_zeroout() has to be modified such that it rejects unalig= +ned +> > REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operations or that blk_bio_write_same_split() has t= +o be +> > modified such that it generates REQ_OP_WRITEs for the unaligned start a= +nd tail. +>=20 > I don't think this is the case. Hello Paolo, @@ -14,16 +19,18 @@ Hello Paolo, Can you cite the section(s) from the SCSI specs that support your view? I reread the "5.49 WRITE SAME (10) command" and "4.7.3.4.4 WRITE SAME command and unmap operations" sections but I have not found any explicit statement -that specifies the behavior for unaligned WRITE SAME commands with the UNMAP -bit set. It seems to me like the OPTIMAL UNMAP GRANULARITY parameter was +that specifies the behavior for unaligned WRITE SAME commands with the UNMA= +P +bit set. It seems to me like=A0the OPTIMAL UNMAP GRANULARITY parameter was overlooked when both sections were written. Should we ask the T10 committee for a clarification? Another question is, if the specification of WRITE SAME + UNMAP would be -made unambiguous in the SBC document, whether or not we should take the risk +made unambiguous in the SBC document, whether or not we should take the ris= +k to trigger behavior that is not what we expect by sending unaligned WRITE SAME + UNMAP commands to SCSI devices? Thanks, -Bart. +Bart.= diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 07821a3..79521a2 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -23,13 +23,18 @@ "b\0" "On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 16:51 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:\n" "> On 28/03/2017 20:50, Bart Van Assche wrote:\n" - "> > This means that just like the start and end of a discard must be aligned on a\n" - "> > discard_granularity boundary, WRITE SAME commands with the UNMAP bit set must\n" + "> > This means that just like the start and end of a discard must be aligne=\n" + "d on a\n" + "> > discard_granularity boundary, WRITE SAME commands with the UNMAP bit se=\n" + "t must\n" "> > also respect that granularity. I think this means that either\n" - "> > __blkdev_issue_zeroout() has to be modified such that it rejects unaligned\n" - "> > REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operations or that blk_bio_write_same_split() has to be\n" - "> > modified such that it generates REQ_OP_WRITEs for the unaligned start and tail.\n" - "> \n" + "> > __blkdev_issue_zeroout() has to be modified such that it rejects unalig=\n" + "ned\n" + "> > REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operations or that blk_bio_write_same_split() has t=\n" + "o be\n" + "> > modified such that it generates REQ_OP_WRITEs for the unaligned start a=\n" + "nd tail.\n" + ">=20\n" "> I don't think this is the case.\n" "\n" "Hello Paolo,\n" @@ -37,18 +42,20 @@ "Can you cite the section(s) from the SCSI specs that support your view? I\n" "reread the \"5.49 WRITE SAME (10) command\" and \"4.7.3.4.4 WRITE SAME command\n" "and unmap operations\" sections but I have not found any explicit statement\n" - "that specifies the behavior for unaligned WRITE SAME commands with the UNMAP\n" - "bit set. It seems to me like\302\240the OPTIMAL UNMAP GRANULARITY parameter was\n" + "that specifies the behavior for unaligned WRITE SAME commands with the UNMA=\n" + "P\n" + "bit set. It seems to me like=A0the OPTIMAL UNMAP GRANULARITY parameter was\n" "overlooked when both sections were written. Should we ask the T10 committee\n" "for a clarification?\n" "\n" "Another question is, if the specification of WRITE SAME + UNMAP would be\n" - "made unambiguous in the SBC document, whether or not we should take the risk\n" + "made unambiguous in the SBC document, whether or not we should take the ris=\n" + "k\n" "to trigger behavior that is not what we expect by sending unaligned WRITE\n" "SAME + UNMAP commands to SCSI devices?\n" "\n" "Thanks,\n" "\n" - Bart. + Bart.= -fe96be205a859ad02eeb55eb9981e66d4bf2b275cbf72b29f0c86d7c24fbc4d7 +3e30cf06cd6cfb45a6b39f9a5019baff102b1a50fae56f5ccf9da9fa2978ae5a
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 07821a3..45f1166 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ "ref\01490726988.2573.16.camel@sandisk.com\0" "ref\0e19ca1bf-0908-1eb0-cb04-cd306692f216@redhat.com\0" "From\0Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>\0" - "Subject\0Re: [PATCH 03/23] sd: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES\0" + "Subject\0Re: [Drbd-dev] [PATCH 03/23] sd: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES\0" "Date\0Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:28:01 +0000\0" "To\0agk@redhat.com <agk@redhat.com>" lars.ellenberg@linbit.com <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com> @@ -14,11 +14,11 @@ axboe@kernel.dk <axboe@kernel.dk> pbonzini@redhat.com <pbonzini@redhat.com> " shli@kernel.org <shli@kernel.org>\0" - "Cc\0linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>" + "Cc\0linux-block@vger.kernel.org <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>" + linux-raid@vger.kernel.org <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org> dm-devel@redhat.com <dm-devel@redhat.com> - drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com <drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com> - linux-block@vger.kernel.org <linux-block@vger.kernel.org> - " linux-raid@vger.kernel.org <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>\0" + linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org> + " drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com <drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 16:51 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:\n" @@ -51,4 +51,4 @@ "\n" Bart. -fe96be205a859ad02eeb55eb9981e66d4bf2b275cbf72b29f0c86d7c24fbc4d7 +bbf561fc4ff5bb5e19172a6a78edd83120df2632d02182614807693371b59346
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.