Re: [PATCH 2/2] cxl/memdev: Introduce sanitize-memdev functionality

[Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 08:00:43AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023, Alison Schofield wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:54:51PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:

snip

> > > +
> > > +	/* let Sanitize be the default */
> > > +	if (!param.secure_erase && !param.sanitize)
> > > +		param.sanitize = true;
> > > +
> > > +	if (param.secure_erase)
> > > +		rc = cxl_memdev_sanitize(memdev, "erase");
> > > +	if (param.sanitize)
> > > +		rc = cxl_memdev_sanitize(memdev, "sanitize");
> > > +	else
> > > +		rc = -EINVAL;
> > 
> > What's the deal w supporting secure erase with sanitize?
> > Seems useless, but perhaps it's cheap.
> 
> It is what it is. The secure erase option passed as a program
> parameter seemed a natural fit - in addition, both operations
> are logically grouped under the Sanitize category per specs.
> 
> Vishal was fine with this, did you have anything in mind?

If the tool accepts both cmdline options at the same time, it's
implying that there is value in doing the secure-erase followed
by the sanitize.

Does the user get more value by doing both, or is secure-erase useless
when followed immediately by sanitize?

Alison


> 
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr