From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] block: ioctl support for sanitize in eMMC 4.5 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:36:31 +0000 Message-ID: <201207261336.32018.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1343208766-8046-1-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> <1343208766-8046-2-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1343208766-8046-2-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Yaniv Gardi Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, open list List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 25 July 2012, Yaniv Gardi wrote: > > Adding a new ioctl to support sanitize operation in eMMC > cards version 4.5. > The sanitize ioctl support helps performing this operation > via user application. > > Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi > Can you explain how you expect this to be called by a file system? We've debated this in the past and concluded that we probably want to do it at the same time as batched discard, but I don't see if the sanitize request should be sent for each FITRIM or whether we should better have a separate file system level ioctl. My feeling is that it would be more useful to call this feature through a file system level ioctl than through a block level ioctl, but I guess it makes sense to support both. Arnd