From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] bio-integrity: use hardware sectors instead of block
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:35:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110405203435.GA13179@elie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq1ljbi8i1z.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Hi,
On 2010-05-17, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> The change is obviously functionally correct. But I object to the
> notion of hw_sectors. The 1:1 mapping of DIF tuples and logical blocks
> is even going away in SBC3. So let's not perpetuate that.
>
> I have a patch in my queue that gets rid of all the hw_sector references
> in the integrity code. I'll make sure to include your fix.
>
> So thanks for spotting this. I obviously haven't tested PI drives with
> a 4KB logical block size in combination with device mapper...
I'm just curious: did anything come of this? Nowadays gcc 4.6 warns
about the same unused nr_sector var smatch warned about, so new
readers are coming to the same question of why this function doesn't
use hardware sectors.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] bio-integrity: use hardware sectors instead of block layer sectors
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:35:14 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110405203435.GA13179@elie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq1ljbi8i1z.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Hi,
On 2010-05-17, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> The change is obviously functionally correct. But I object to the
> notion of hw_sectors. The 1:1 mapping of DIF tuples and logical blocks
> is even going away in SBC3. So let's not perpetuate that.
>
> I have a patch in my queue that gets rid of all the hw_sector references
> in the integrity code. I'll make sure to include your fix.
>
> So thanks for spotting this. I obviously haven't tested PI drives with
> a 4KB logical block size in combination with device mapper...
I'm just curious: did anything come of this? Nowadays gcc 4.6 warns
about the same unused nr_sector var smatch warned about, so new
readers are coming to the same question of why this function doesn't
use hardware sectors.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-05 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-07 8:29 [patch] bio-integrity: use hardware sectors instead of block layer sectors Dan Carpenter
2010-05-07 9:32 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-05-07 9:54 ` [patch v2] bio-integrity: use hardware sectors instead of block Dan Carpenter
2010-05-07 9:54 ` [patch v2] bio-integrity: use hardware sectors instead of block layer sectors Dan Carpenter
2010-05-17 19:06 ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-05-17 19:06 ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-04-05 20:35 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2011-04-05 20:35 ` Jonathan Nieder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110405203435.GA13179@elie \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=error27@gmail.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.