From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:27:24 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Tejun Heo Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Bottomley , martin.petersen@oracle.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: support ranges TRIM for libata Message-ID: <20170323152724.GA32450@lst.de> References: <20170320204319.12628-1-hch@lst.de> <20170321185901.GB3706@htj.duckdns.org> <20170322181947.GA4733@lst.de> <1490276861.2202.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170323135521.GA30361@lst.de> <1490279706.2202.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170323144330.GA31447@lst.de> <20170323150458.GA3241@htj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170323150458.GA3241@htj.duckdns.org> List-ID: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:04:58AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > I kinda like the idea of sticking with satl as that's how libata has > been doing most things even if the implementation is uglier. It'd be > great to find out whether the ugliness would be acceptable or too > much. The SATL way is simply broken. I'll just leave the code corrupting user data and 5 times slower than it could be then.