From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753406Ab2GZVpM (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:45:12 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:56711 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753358Ab2GZVpC (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:45:02 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Yaniv Gardi Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] block: ioctl support for sanitize in eMMC 4.5 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:36:31 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.5.0; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, open list References: <1343208766-8046-1-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> <1343208766-8046-2-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <1343208766-8046-2-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201207261336.32018.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:MXNxMlBAI7/PJWWqA/iD/+l+nzQ/U5EmjWRGJGMsTdN EoDlUVzzUuRgCLl+wARhcYfUDqU//C4mGxECZFMlK4Easx9G4L gYJ31Xm+dZ2EMv/qOkKVjpYgoIvH8HocFcUPi24A/pWyfCPlvD yyDfveotRFBqkQi8HbhDD4YvQ4El+mb/6Q3p1Y+XJBODMdSbJg 4pInpmS3TFvNU/9cRHMu6CaPKfDsMWl0FSg43UaarGIeI5c+EJ /cMFKFpmoPj9dlyTP5DYQkyOceYXiiMzerS4o7CVjNL99dt1kN ktrrKNN285GeJZRJ5klJ6pPkrWS41EqMcgLyQHLmbQEhoq1hGC o6DFB088XdMAHfCgMDIw= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 25 July 2012, Yaniv Gardi wrote: > > Adding a new ioctl to support sanitize operation in eMMC > cards version 4.5. > The sanitize ioctl support helps performing this operation > via user application. > > Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi > Can you explain how you expect this to be called by a file system? We've debated this in the past and concluded that we probably want to do it at the same time as batched discard, but I don't see if the sanitize request should be sent for each FITRIM or whether we should better have a separate file system level ioctl. My feeling is that it would be more useful to call this feature through a file system level ioctl than through a block level ioctl, but I guess it makes sense to support both. Arnd