From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] Zoned block device support improvements Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:59:16 -0600 Message-ID: <78778e22-9c5e-99d0-ef5c-85e04d03a4b7@kernel.dk> References: <20181012100850.23316-1-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181012100850.23316-1-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Damien Le Moal , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "Martin K . Petersen" , dm-devel@redhat.com, Mike Snitzer Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Matias Bjorling List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 10/12/18 4:08 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote: > This series improves zoned block device support (reduce overhead) and > introduces many simplifications to the code (overall, there are more deletions > than insertions). > > In more details: > * Patches 1 to 3 are SCSI side (sd driver) cleanups and improvements reducing > the overhead of report zones command execution during disk scan and > revalidation. > * Patches 4 to 9 improve the useability and user API of zoned block devices. > * Patch 10 is the main part of this series. This patch replaces the > REQ_OP_ZONE_REPORT BIO/request operation for executing report zones commands > with a block device file operation, removing the need for the command reply > payload in-place rewriting in the BIO buffer. This leads to major > simplification of the code in many places. > * Patch 11 further simplifies the code of low level drivers by providing a > generic implementation of zoned block device reuest queue zone bitmaps > initialization and revalidation. I've applied this, but I have two complaints: 1) Two had to be hand applied, it wasn't against the block tree. 2) The ordering of the signed-off-by. Someone told me that this is patchwork, but I absolutely hate it. SOB should go last, not before the reviewed-by. I fixed that up too. -- Jens Axboe