From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [RFC] Draft Linux kernel interfaces for ZBC drives Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:03:02 -0600 Message-ID: <52F00406.3020301@sandeen.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Theodore Ts'o , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from sandeen.net ([63.231.237.45]:52034 "EHLO sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752419AbaBCVDE (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:03:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 1/30/14, 11:38 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I've been reading the draft ZBC specifications, especially 14-010r1[1], > and I've created the following draft kernel interfaces, which I present > as a strawman proposal for comments. > > [1] http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=14-010r1.pdf > > As noted in the comments below, supporting variable length SMR zones > does result in more complexity at the file system / userspace interface > layer. Life would certainly get simpler if these zones were fixed > length. Hi Ted - Just to flesh out the context for these a bit, what do you envision as the consumer of these interfaces? Things in the block layer? A DM target? Existing filesystems? A new filesystem? I suppose we'll need an interface similar to this at whatever layer has to deal with it. I've got my own opinions on where we might handle it (IMHO, retrofitting 3 or 4 major filesystems sounds like more than really want to take on), but it'd be nice to know what you're thinking here. Thanks, -Eric