From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68B8C4332F for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 05:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234883AbiBJFwN (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:52:13 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:45948 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235083AbiBJFv5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:51:57 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D23810ED; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 21:51:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 6A40F68B05; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 06:51:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 06:51:51 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , axboe@kernel.dk, philipp.reisner@linbit.com, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, target-devel@vger.kernel.org, haris.iqbal@ionos.com, jinpu.wang@ionos.com, manoj@linux.ibm.com, mrochs@linux.ibm.com, ukrishn@linux.ibm.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: remove REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME v2 Message-ID: <20220210055151.GA3491@lst.de> References: <20220209082828.2629273-1-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:00:26PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Christoph, > > > Now that we are using REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES for all zeroing needs in the > > kernel there is very little use left for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME. We only > > have two callers left, and both just export optional protocol features > > to remote systems: DRBD and the target code. > > No particular objections from me. I had a half-baked series to do the > same thing. > > One thing I would like is to either pull this series through SCSI or do > the block pieces in a post merge branch because I'm about to post my > discard/zeroing rework and that's going to clash with your changes. I'd be fine with taking this through the SCSI tree. Or we can wait another merge window to make your life easier.