public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: dgilbert@interlog.com
Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	mkp@mkp.net, "Lukáš Czerner" <lczerner@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_debug: add LBPRZ support
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:18:35 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F5808EB.9000909@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F58049C.5010505@interlog.com>

On 3/7/12 7:00 PM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 12-03-07 03:09 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Add LBPRZ support to scsi_debug; i.e. return zero for
>> unmapped blocks.
>>
>> Rather than checking for unmapped blocks at
>> read time, this just zeroes them on the backing store
>> at unmap time so it behaves the same way.
>>
>> This also adds a module parameter to disable it, since
>> some SSDs have this behavior.
>>
>> unmap_zeroes, "unmapped blocks return 0 on read (def=1)"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Note: This was sent long ago as "TPRZ" support, but lost, I guess.
>>
>> Note2: dgilbert preferred "zeros" to "zeroes" at the time,
>> but since we have "discard_zeroes_data" in sysfs it seems like
>> we should be consistent with the kernel precedent, rather than
>> the spec spelling.
> 
> Eric,
> I checked the latest drafts of SPC-4 and SBC-3 and they
> contain both "zeros" and "zeroes". Take your pick!

While we're talking about names, looking at other scsi_debug_* flags
should it be lbprz / scsi_debug_lbprz / DEF_LBPRZ instead of
unmap_zeroes / scsi_debug_unmap_zeroes / DEF_UNMAP_ZEROES?
 
> More seriously the LBPRZ flag now appears in the Logical
> Block Provisioning VPD page and the READ CAPACITY (16)
> response. Your patch sets the latter, could you add the
> LBPRZ flag setting in the inquiry_evpd_b2() function as
> well. Perhaps:
>   if (scsi_debug_unmap_zeroes)
>     arr[1] |= 1 << 2;

ok; I'm no scsi guy, just a pattern-following monkey but I'll
change that if you say it's right. :)

> And if your are editing that function in the comment introducing
> that function:
>    s/Thin/Logical block/
> to reflect the renaming done by t10.org .

ok.

> Ah, and inquiry_evpd_b2() should return 4 (not 8).

Is that at all related to this change or some other random bug?
Should that return be unconditional?  Should that be a separate
patch?  By someone who knows what it means? :)

> Otherwise it looks good.


Thanks,

-Eric


 
> Doug Gilbert
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-08  1:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-07 20:09 [PATCH] scsi_debug: add LBPRZ support Eric Sandeen
2012-03-08  1:00 ` Douglas Gilbert
2012-03-08  1:18   ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2012-03-08  5:04     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-08  6:03   ` [PATCH V2] " Eric Sandeen
2012-03-08 15:47     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-08 15:48     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-10 18:47       ` Douglas Gilbert
2012-03-10 18:45     ` Douglas Gilbert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4F5808EB.9000909@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=dgilbert@interlog.com \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mkp@mkp.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox