From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751413AbdEUHPx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 21 May 2017 03:15:53 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:35441 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750822AbdEUHPu (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 21 May 2017 03:15:50 -0400
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 16:15:36 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@lge.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, axboe@kernel.dk,
        jlayton@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] zram: do not count duplicated pages as compressed
Message-ID: <20170521071536.GA9377@bgram>
References: <20170516073616.GB767@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170517083212.GA25750@bbox>
 <20170521070427.GB10453@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170521070427.GB10453@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 12:04:27AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:32:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Is block device(esp, zram which is compressed ram block device) okay to
> > return garbage when ongoing overwrite IO fails?
> > 
> > O_DIRECT write 4 block "aaa.." -> success
> > read  4 block "aaa.." -> success
> > O_DIRECT write 4 block "bbb.." -> fail
> > read  4 block "000..' -> it is okay?
> > 
> > Hope to get an answer form experts. :)
> 
> It's "okay" as it's what existing real block devices do (at least on a
> sector boundary).  It's not "nice" though, so if you can avoid it,
> please do.

That was my understanding so I wanted to avoid it for just simple
code refactoring. Your comment helps to confirm the thhought.

Thanks, Christoph!