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 CA667C433EF for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 06:43:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235637AbiBQGoJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 01:44:09 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:45308 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229471AbiBQGoI (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 01:44:08 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA4D2178386; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id AD69868B05; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:43:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:43:49 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jens Axboe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Martin K. Petersen" , philipp.reisner@linbit.com, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, target-devel@vger.kernel.org, haris.iqbal@ionos.com, jinpu.wang@ionos.com, manoj@linux.ibm.com, mrochs@linux.ibm.com, ukrishn@linux.ibm.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: remove REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME v2 Message-ID: <20220217064349.GA374@lst.de> References: <20220209082828.2629273-1-hch@lst.de> <20220210055151.GA3491@lst.de> <2f3f1c98-e013-ee03-2ffb-3a14730b13b9@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2f3f1c98-e013-ee03-2ffb-3a14730b13b9@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:07:56PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > Let's just use the SCSI tree - I didn't check if it throws any conflicts > right now, so probably something to check upfront... There is a minor conflict because the __blkdev_issue_write_same function removed by this series is affected by the blk_next_bio calling convention change in the block tree, but the fixup is trivial. Martin: do you want to fix that up when applying, or do you want me to resend? If you have your discard rework ready you can also send that now and I'll rebase on top of that.