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
>
next prev parent 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