From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: Bigger discard payloads Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:52:51 -0500 Message-ID: <4CEFBBB3.4090508@teksavvy.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:20529 "EHLO ironport2-out.pppoe.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755173Ab0KZNwx (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:52:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 10-11-25 09:43 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > I posted the first version of this patch a few months ago. Inspired by > the recent discussions I decided to take another stab at supporting TRIM > payloads bigger than 512 bytes. Most of the drives I have here advertise max payload of 512 bytes. Given this, and that the kernel won't actually use more than one range today (except for sequential/adjacent ranges), do we think that supporting more than 512 bytes will be useful? I suppose it could be useful once we get multiple non-adjacent range support. Thanks!