From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Jeff Moyer To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Damien Le Moal , Jens Axboe , , , Christoph Hellwig , Hannes Reinecke , Shaun Tancheff , Damien Le Moal Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/7] sd: Implement support for ZBC devices References: <1476772835-18541-1-git-send-email-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> <1476772835-18541-7-git-send-email-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:21:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Martin K. Petersen's message of "Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:44:35 -0400") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-ID: "Martin K. Petersen" writes: >>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Moyer writes: > > Jeff, > > Jeff> Are power of 2 zone sizes required by the standard? I see why > Jeff> you've done this, but I wonder if we're artificially limiting the > Jeff> implementation, and whether there will be valid devices on the > Jeff> market that simply won't work with Linux because of this. > > Standards are deliberately written to be permissive. But Linux doesn't > support arbitrary sector sizes either even though the spec allows it. We > always pick a reasonably sane subset of features to implement and this > case is no different. > > After some discussion we decided to rip out all the complexity that was > required to facilitate crazy drive layouts. As a result, the code is now > in a state where we can actually merge it. The hope is that by picking a > specific configuration subset and widely advertising it we can influence > the market. > > Also, I am not aware of anybody actually asking the drive vendors to > support crazy zone configurations. That's fine with me. I didn't see any mention of this design decision in the patch logs, though, and given that I'm not intimately involved, I asked the question. Thanks, Jeff