From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net (011.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54FAC3563F7; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769541106; cv=none; b=fg5Xc5+pve0FZpN9YSIMoTSkP+4i2Mj2X6qOl+TxT2W5gOzWZ4HsjgoJxJCFvgbrebZyzgEhsqTw6xO1PZmIKyDKwFJCxhDQ5zAZTI7G8BlH8bFDbZmHtOgdmsbofrMx2hzrzUs+wf/v0gtAT4WbCUJ9xxLGODfvCODiJb67xrU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769541106; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DUMJe/VxGA+6yV8AzRB+ip/UczIzPN0SiwsyJmHnyns=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=naaPLAe7Cy5UbBvAIprMAasod9vO3lEn/U6w3TfEqvbDBPM3rLn5ll3Q0H+tTqK8/PSXrMT6Un/1HIK5NQAjs48weUaLiHo+wjpIpKRqaFy1KxyR3AON5fyk/XlbxjeG+gQ5ElFX9ZmVA7CuW6HOTeI/csKkCZ3pkVoIgww6btQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=VX3cQvzX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="VX3cQvzX" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4f0w4P3Vj4z1XLwWq; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:11:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1769541091; x=1772133092; bh=/Nelkyz1DwIXiGdmAwkkHf/1 f9ijeOdEKCLoXCN3G+M=; b=VX3cQvzXloGUZCdvcYCnkOqyMZ1JbJpoNhMNSk45 zGTbleVrPtQFz1KO7XlJC0rXsBTPbxQpGkg9KqI9ASKQNOwyr0zQI9I2kGAk/gWQ 6Nn+2H9bos6FHKvDYTHsdSp8iRXxFdgRbYCNDmtN8Z4itKiMKVAxgsM5bett+MYA ARk/sTpieRpDybGN9uoJby4Z6mWpvsKZqIdI8CKPsI3hEYnSNKEO7hf3JG5vGdal z+CG2cxPvxyPO4uwevRmtyeAaBfI9k/IIhekTdkyCM8PmaSefcR4niEwYiyUKfXD /+M67wedPrmQ8U9nxe32XK1/PDrzdX2mXIL6rJP11bgzHA== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (011.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id 0hSH0Or-G6py; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:11:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.119.48.131] (unknown [104.135.180.219]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4f0w4L2p2jz1XLyhf; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <6d648dab-fe05-437e-be25-6c026302322e@acm.org> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:11:29 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Block storage copy offloading To: Viacheslav Dubeyko , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jaegeuk Kim References: <0cfe6fe2-3865-4dc2-92a7-74b1240f7b63@acm.org> <5273400e-5cf8-4d70-a85d-accfb2977d8e@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/27/26 10:03 AM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > So, frankly speaking, currently, I don't see the generic technique that > can work for all LFS file systems. If I change my topic proposal such that it says "some LFS can benefit from copy offloading" instead of "all LFS can benefit from copy offloading", is that sufficient to agree? Thanks, Bart.