Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: check if device supports trim

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

On 9/23/13 10:44 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:08:08AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 9/20/13 11:42 AM, David Sterba wrote:
>>> The message about trim was printed unconditionally, we should check if
>>> trim is supported at all.
>>
>> Good idea, but I wonder if there's any risk that discard(0,0) will ever
>> be optimized away on the kernel side & pass unconditionally?
> 
> I hope the checks in blkdev_issue_discard() stay in the order as of now:
> 
>  40 int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
>  41                 sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned long flags)
>  42 {
> ...
>  52
>  53         if (!q)
>  54                 return -ENXIO;
>  55
>  56         if (!blk_queue_discard(q))
>  57                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> here it returns no matter what the arguments are, setting length to 0 is
> just cautious.
> 
>  59         /* Zero-sector (unknown) and one-sector granularities are the same.  */
>  60         granularity = max(q->limits.discard_granularity >> 9, 1U);
>  61         alignment = bdev_discard_alignment(bdev) >> 9;
>  62         alignment = sector_div(alignment, granularity);
>  63
> 
>> I was thinking we could get this from blkid, but maybe not.
> 
> Possibly yes, with other information like rotational etc.
> 
> Alternatively,
> 
> /sys/block/sdx/queue/dicard_granularity > 0 means that the device
> supports discard, but that's imo even more fragile than the direct
> call to discard.

Perhaps; and I don't think libblkid gives us easy access to that anyway,
at least I didn't see it on a quick look.

So yeah, I think it's fine as you sent it; it doesn't actually change
behavior anyway other than the printf.

Thanks,
-Eric