From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] block: Prevent the use of REQ_FUA with read operations
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2022 09:32:39 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2e297a5-b25f-dba2-bac9-dcb2342faeb5@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y2NylejsWVvOeZuL@infradead.org>
On 11/3/22 1:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 09:17:54AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> This looks fine, but if we're never expecting this to happen, I do think
>> it should just go into libata instead as that's the only user that
>> cares about it. Yes, that'll lose the backtrace for who submitted it
>> potentially, but you can debug it pretty easily at that point if you
>> run into it.
>
> FUA and PREFLUSH are bits only defined for writes. libata might be the
> first thing blowing up, but it really is a block layer constraint.
> So validity checking what is being sent to the block layer at the
> highest possible lyer is a good thing to ensure we don't get us in
> trouble by someone accidentally sending one down or even expecting it
> to work. Especially as at least SCSI actually defines semantics for FUA
> on reads, but they are completely bogus and useless.
OK, fair enough. I guess we can stick it in the block layer.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-05 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-31 2:26 [PATCH v4 0/7] Improve libata support for FUA Damien Le Moal
2022-10-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v4 1/7] block: Prevent the use of REQ_FUA with read operations Damien Le Moal
2022-11-01 15:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-11-01 22:05 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-02 7:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-11-02 7:27 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-02 15:17 ` Jens Axboe
2022-11-02 22:28 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-03 7:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-11-05 15:32 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2022-10-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v4 2/7] ata: libata: Introduce ata_ncq_supported() Damien Le Moal
2022-10-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v4 3/7] ata: libata: Rename and cleanup ata_rwcmd_protocol() Damien Le Moal
2022-10-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v4 4/7] ata: libata: cleanup fua support detection Damien Le Moal
2022-10-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v4 5/7] ata: libata: Fix FUA handling in ata_build_rw_tf() Damien Le Moal
2022-10-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v4 6/7] ata: libata: blacklist FUA support for known buggy drives Damien Le Moal
2022-10-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v4 7/7] ata: libata: Enable fua support by default Damien Le Moal
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-10-31 1:53 [PATCH v4 0/7] Damien Le Moal
2022-10-31 1:53 ` [PATCH v4 1/7] block: Prevent the use of REQ_FUA with read operations Damien Le Moal
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 \
--in-reply-to=e2e297a5-b25f-dba2-bac9-dcb2342faeb5@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mail@maciej.szmigiero.name \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.