Re: [PATCH 0/6] ZNS: Extra features for current patches

From: "Matias Bjørling" <mb@lightnvm.io>
To: "Javier González" <javier@javigon.com>
Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	hch@lst.de, kbusch@kernel.org, sagi@grimberg.me, axboe@kernel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ZNS: Extra features for current patches
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:53:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2c075399-36ff-58bc-e29f-36157c852e05@lightnvm.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200625193929.eitl3th2mn2mlxu2@MacBook-Pro.localdomain>

On 25/06/2020 21.39, Javier González wrote:
> On 25.06.2020 16:48, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>> On 25/06/2020 15.04, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>> On 25/06/2020 14.21, Javier González wrote:
>>>> From: Javier González <javier.gonz@samsung.com>
>>>>
>>>> This patchset extends zoned device functionality on top of the 
>>>> existing
>>>> v3 ZNS patchset that Keith sent last week.
>>>>
>>>> Patches 1-5 are zoned block interface and IOCTL additions to expose 
>>>> ZNS
>>>> values to user-space. One major change is the addition of a new zone
>>>> management IOCTL that allows to extend zone management commands with
>>>> flags. I recall a conversation in the mailing list from early this 
>>>> year
>>>> where a similar approach was proposed by Matias, but never made it
>>>> upstream. We extended the IOCTL here to align with the comments in 
>>>> that
>>>> thread. Here, we are happy to get sign-offs by anyone that contributed
>>>> to the thread - just comment here or on the patch.
>>>
>>> The original patchset is available here: 
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/21/419
>>>
>>> We wanted to wait posting our updated patches until the base patches 
>>> were upstream. I guess the cat is out of the bag. :)
>>>
>>> For the open/finish/reset patch, you'll want to take a look at the 
>>> original patchset, and apply the feedback from that thread to your 
>>> patch. Please also consider the users of these operations, e.g., dm, 
>>> scsi, null_blk, etc. The original patchset has patches for that.
>>>
>> Please disregard the above - I forgot that the original patchset 
>> actually went upstream.
>>
>> You're right that we discussed (I at least discussed it internally 
>> with Damien, but I can't find the mail) having one mgmt issuing the 
>> commands. We didn't go ahead and added it at that point due to ZNS 
>> still being in a fluffy state.
>>
>
> Does the proposed IOCTL align with the use cases you have in mind? I'm
> happy to take it in a different series if you want to add patches to it
> for other drivers (scsi, null_blk, etc.).

I think the ioctl makes sense. I wanted to have it like that originally. 
I'm still thinking through if it covers the short-term cases for the 
upcoming TPs.