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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93640D6ACEF for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:52:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=ugy9qv0eFf1SbSnOPJsIF3aBn39/7Kp16QkcvmqOXWM=; b=PioV+yccGkDvnZHJn57wSP7VPC +1ARXKCoJlYpJfLgMG/q1DgQD/KiYQOuCiUWNyjKqfDlnIA27x0MgHjE67Onl4o7eSr/84isUqfBg RX8PbeTCKk3BHWhIUASNIhzun2Ywt3CQnx1hTdWrp/L0SpLPcL6bvWg9Fv9+4wTsTRPh2d1Rll4++ MNbvyk8qeZXITrMV7zEFnZyr4ydILjjLRdPck/Ooib5tAvoQuDAlp1NoA39vA0E0TlrliLgEy0iuw 2gIAv/61qUL8G+JcpEsi+ozGhN+7/DBLvuUthhybuF86QzoxqtZ60iScf++6v65+gc8d1ViRRkP6R /zdtb6uQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tGKKm-0000000DYe3-2Mmj; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:52:08 +0000 Received: from nyc.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:45d1:ec00::3]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tGKKk-0000000DYdd-2H4h for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:52:07 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by nyc.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE34CA438C4; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F1EFC4CECC; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:52:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1732722725; bh=Qk3Ix05dqxG8bJNSHR/5K3MbZSYAVcg0tzJpAUDIU3s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mZkAuJpdmN1WtC9JngSoc/qR0glXzF2PkBXdkLYsxUdvPIfz3x5zHY6xKwC+WqRnn N/UQ+A+pJmpB/G/msIuQZZy6bmIW0FVKqVapFaiFSzj8gYao+9q7bLuJI0ZsEqa1EE +zXx/uaQNCGUsv/1lFKJWePFdm9oAkzk6J/cUzzmq4RrvhKFlRKfV9pJfkw6F4ocbd hq86Xu8ipWV7K6hpiOMHW+x6u5rrwdVMARGGD/sjNpyF9Nnlf4jYfhguV4GTtv3mRi cAQALzUyQdcG79mBOFqEkl0pAo8vLOASXlVYAOhGYNGi7VHr/pYOjUm4FgEmYJ158i 3ZA/ELjFTS3NA== Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 08:52:03 -0700 From: Keith Busch To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: sagi@grimberg.me, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Saeed Mirzamohammadi Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: don't apply NVME_QUIRK_DEALLOCATE_ZEROES when DSM is not supported Message-ID: References: <20241127064218.42688-1-hch@lst.de> <20241127154812.GA24372@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241127154812.GA24372@lst.de> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20241127_075206_644068_DF681CEC X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.87 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:48:12PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 08:45:04AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > I still think this is wrong, and we should just remove the quirk for > > this device. With the exception to this firmware version, this device > > generally supports both discards and write zeroes. The only reason it > > added this quirk was because the quirk used to mean something completely > > different (specifically, it would set the "discard_zeroes_data" > > attribute that's no longer used). It didn't mean to prefer discards over > > write zeroes, but that's what it means now, and that's not what this > > drive wants. > > I'll have to trust you on this device, and certainly won't object > removing this weirdo quick. But as long as we don't remove the > quirk entirely we'll also need this fix. So I guess we should go > for both? Sure, that sounds good to me.