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 3A362C433FE for ; Tue, 17 May 2022 08:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242471AbiEQIL6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2022 04:11:58 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34518 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242566AbiEQIK4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2022 04:10:56 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C4E72BF2; Tue, 17 May 2022 01:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id B1EFE67373; Tue, 17 May 2022 10:10:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 10:10:48 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Pankaj Raghav Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, pankydev8@gmail.com, dsterba@suse.com, hch@lst.de, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, jiangbo.365@bytedance.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] support non power of 2 zoned devices Message-ID: <20220517081048.GA13947@lst.de> References: <20220516165416.171196-1-p.raghav@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220516165416.171196-1-p.raghav@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org I'm a little surprised about all this activity. I though the conclusion at LSF/MM was that for Linux itself there is very little benefit in supporting this scheme. It will massively fragment the supported based of devices and applications, while only having the benefit of supporting some Samsung legacy devices. So my impression was that this work, while technically feasible, is rather useless. So unless I missed something important I have no interest in supporting this in NVMe.