From: John Garry <[email protected]>
To: Luis Chamberlain <[email protected]>,
Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
Himanshu Madhani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/10] block: Add core atomic write support
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:15:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 11/04/2024 00:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> On 3/26/24 06:38, John Garry wrote:
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
>>> index 1fe9a553c37b..4c775f4bdefe 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
>>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
>>> +What: /sys/block/<disk>/atomic_write_boundary_bytes
>>> +Date: February 2024
>>> +Contact: Himanshu Madhani<[email protected]>
>>> +Description:
>>> + [RO] A device may need to internally split I/Os which
>>> + straddle a given logical block address boundary. In that
>>> + case a single atomic write operation will be processed as
>>> + one of more sub-operations which each complete atomically.
>> or
> If*or* was meant, wouldn't it be better just to say one or more
> operations may be processed as one atomically in this situation?
"Or" was meant (thanks Randy).
I think that we just need to say that the write operation will not
complete atomically if it straddles the boundary. Whether the separate
parts of the write operation which straddle the boundary complete
atomically is undefined and irrelevant.
Thanks,
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-11 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-26 13:38 [PATCH v6 00/10] block atomic writes John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 01/10] block: Pass blk_queue_get_max_sectors() a request pointer John Garry
2024-04-10 22:58 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 02/10] block: Call blkdev_dio_unaligned() from blkdev_direct_IO() John Garry
2024-04-10 22:53 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-11 8:06 ` John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 03/10] fs: Initial atomic write support John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 04/10] fs: Add initial atomic write support info to statx John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 05/10] block: Add core atomic write support John Garry
2024-03-26 17:11 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-04-10 23:34 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-11 8:15 ` John Garry [this message]
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 06/10] block: Add atomic write support for statx John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 07/10] block: Add fops atomic write support John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 08/10] scsi: sd: Atomic " John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 09/10] scsi: scsi_debug: " John Garry
2024-03-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v6 10/10] nvme: " John Garry
2024-04-11 0:29 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-11 8:59 ` John Garry
2024-04-11 16:22 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-11 23:32 ` Dan Helmick
2024-03-27 3:50 ` [PATCH v6 00/10] block atomic writes Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-27 13:37 ` John Garry
2024-04-04 16:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-04-05 10:06 ` John Garry
2024-04-08 17:50 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-10 4:05 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-04-10 6:20 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-04-11 0:38 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-14 20:50 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-15 21:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-04-16 21:11 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-10 8:34 ` John Garry
2024-04-11 19:07 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-04-12 8:15 ` John Garry
2024-04-12 18:28 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-03-27 20:31 ` Dave Chinner
2024-04-05 10:20 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-04-05 10:55 ` John Garry
2024-04-05 6:14 ` Kent Overstreet
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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