Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: fix leaks associated with discard request payload

[Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>]

On 06/30/2010 01:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 01:25:01PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> OK, Thanks, I see. Is it one of these operations, (like we have in OSD) where
>> the CDB information spills into the payload? like the scatter-gather and extent
>> lists and such.
> 
> For UNMAP the payload is a list of block number / length pairs, while
> the CDB itself doesn't contain any information like that.  It's a rather
> awkward command.
> 

How big can that be? could we, maybe, use the sense_buffer, properly allocated
already?

>> Do we actually use a WRITE_SAME which is not zero? for what use?
> 
> The kernel doesn't issue any WRITE SAME without the unmap bit set.

So if the unmap bit is set then the page can just be zero, right?

I still think a static zero-page is a worth while optimization. And
block-drivers can take care with special needs with a private mem_pool
or something. For the discard-type user and generic block layer the
page is just an implementation specific residue, No?

But don't mind me, I'm just babbling. Not that I'll do anything about it.
Boaz