From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 16:15:36 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim , Sergey Senozhatsky , kernel-team , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, axboe@kernel.dk, jlayton@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] zram: do not count duplicated pages as compressed Message-ID: <20170521071536.GA9377@bgram> References: <20170516073616.GB767@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> <20170517083212.GA25750@bbox> <20170521070427.GB10453@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170521070427.GB10453@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 12:04:27AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:32:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Is block device(esp, zram which is compressed ram block device) okay to > > return garbage when ongoing overwrite IO fails? > > > > O_DIRECT write 4 block "aaa.." -> success > > read 4 block "aaa.." -> success > > O_DIRECT write 4 block "bbb.." -> fail > > read 4 block "000..' -> it is okay? > > > > Hope to get an answer form experts. :) > > It's "okay" as it's what existing real block devices do (at least on a > sector boundary). It's not "nice" though, so if you can avoid it, > please do. That was my understanding so I wanted to avoid it for just simple code refactoring. Your comment helps to confirm the thhought. Thanks, Christoph!