lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 2/4] Add support for SCT Write Same
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 August 2016 at 03:43, Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tancheff@seagate.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why would we enforce upper level limits on something that doesn't
>> have any?
>
> If we advertise a limit in our SATL, it makes sense that we should
> make sure the behaviour is consistent when we issue a write same
> through the block layer / ioctl and when we issue a SCSI Write Same
> command directly (e.g. with sg_write_same). IMHO that's pretty much
> why SBC would mandate such behaviour as well.

Breaking would be advertising a limit that is too high and failing.
Advertising a lower limit and succeeding may not be ideal for all
possible use cases, but it's not breaking behaviour.

>>
>> If the upper level, or SG_IO, chooses to set a timeout of 10 hours and
>> wipe a whole disk it should be free to do so.
>>
>
> That's why I said, "if you are going to advertise an Maximum Write Same Length".

--
Shaun Tancheff

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:57    [W:0.119 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site