Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] block: add storage element management ioctls

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 04:56:18PM +0200, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > 
> > Sashiko is obviously confused here about partitions that aren't supported
> > on zoned devices.  The conventional zones argument isn't entirely
> > stupid, but also not a great one.  Maybe we should add a check to just
> > reject the ioctls if conventional zones are present, as that would make
> > a mess of the depop anyway?
> 
> Not sure sure it makes sense. 3 things can happen:
> 1) The conv zone goes offline on remove
> 2) The conv zone goes read-only on remove
> 3) The conv zone content is totally unknown on restore since that is a
> destructive op.
> 
> So the "data loss" comment makes sense only in the case (2). All other cases
> lose the data anyway. As we make it clear that the user is responsible for sync
> & no io before issuing a remove ioctl, I am not sure if we really need to do
> anything special here. And we cannot really do anything special since we do not
> know which zones are going to be affected. So either we do nothing and let the
> user deal with potentially cached data not physically accessible anymore (not
> great), or like here invalidate everything.

Maybe add a comment?