Linux-Block Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* [PATCH] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
@ 2019-10-10 17:02 Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-11  7:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2019-10-10 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>

Currently, if the loop device receives a WRITE_ZEROES request, it asks
the underlying filesystem to punch out the range.  This behavior is
correct if unmapping is allowed.  However, a NOUNMAP request means that
the caller forbids us from freeing the storage backing the range, so
punching out the range is incorrect behavior.

To satisfy a NOUNMAP | WRITE_ZEROES request, loop should ask the
underlying filesystem to FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, which is (according to
the fallocate documentation) required to ensure that the entire range is
backed by real storage, which suffices for our purposes.

Fixes: 19372e2769179dd ("loop: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES")
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
---
 drivers/block/loop.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index f6f77eaa7217..0dc981e94bf0 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -441,6 +441,35 @@ static int lo_discard(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int lo_zeroout(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
+{
+	struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
+	int mode = FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
+	int ret;
+
+	/* If we're allowed to unmap the blocks, ask the fs to punch them. */
+	if (!(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOUNMAP)) {
+		ret = lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
+		if (!ret)
+			return 0;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Otherwise, ask the fs to zero out the blocks, which will result in
+	 * space being allocated to the file.
+	 */
+	if (!file->f_op->fallocate) {
+		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	ret = file->f_op->fallocate(file, mode, pos, blk_rq_bytes(rq));
+	if (unlikely(ret && ret != -EINVAL && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP))
+		ret = -EIO;
+ out:
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int lo_req_flush(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
 {
 	struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
@@ -597,8 +626,9 @@ static int do_req_filebacked(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
 	case REQ_OP_FLUSH:
 		return lo_req_flush(lo, rq);
 	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
-	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
 		return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
+	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
+		return lo_zeroout(lo, rq, pos);
 	case REQ_OP_WRITE:
 		if (lo->transfer)
 			return lo_write_transfer(lo, rq, pos);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
  2019-10-10 17:02 [PATCH] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior Darrick J. Wong
@ 2019-10-11  7:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
  2019-10-11 16:05 ` [PATCH v2] " Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-14 15:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Darrick J. Wong
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-10-11  7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Darrick J. Wong
  Cc: Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:02:39AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> 
> Currently, if the loop device receives a WRITE_ZEROES request, it asks
> the underlying filesystem to punch out the range.  This behavior is
> correct if unmapping is allowed.  However, a NOUNMAP request means that
> the caller forbids us from freeing the storage backing the range, so
> punching out the range is incorrect behavior.

It doesn't really forbid, as most protocols don't have a way for forbid
deallocation.  It requests not to.

Otherwise this looks fine, although I would have implemented it slightly
differently:

>  	case REQ_OP_FLUSH:
>  		return lo_req_flush(lo, rq);
>  	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
> -	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
>  		return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
> +	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
> +		return lo_zeroout(lo, rq, pos);

This could just become:

	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
		if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOUNMAP))
			return lo_zeroout(lo, rq, pos);
		/*FALLTHRU*/
	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
		return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
  2019-10-10 17:02 [PATCH] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-11  7:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2019-10-11 16:05 ` " Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-14  7:28   ` Christoph Hellwig
  2019-10-14 15:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Darrick J. Wong
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2019-10-11 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>

Currently, if the loop device receives a WRITE_ZEROES request, it asks
the underlying filesystem to punch out the range.  This behavior is
correct if unmapping is allowed.  However, a NOUNMAP request means that
the caller forbids us from freeing the storage backing the range, so
punching out the range is incorrect behavior.

To satisfy a NOUNMAP | WRITE_ZEROES request, loop should ask the
underlying filesystem to FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, which is (according to
the fallocate documentation) required to ensure that the entire range is
backed by real storage, which suffices for our purposes.

Fixes: 19372e2769179dd ("loop: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES")
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
---
v2: reorganize a little according to hch feedback
---
 drivers/block/loop.c |   31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index f6f77eaa7217..4943d0c5c61c 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -441,6 +441,28 @@ static int lo_discard(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int lo_zeroout(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
+{
+	struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
+	int mode = FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
+	int ret;
+
+	/*
+	 * Ask the fs to zero out the blocks, which is supposed to result in
+	 * space being allocated to the file.
+	 */
+	if (!file->f_op->fallocate) {
+		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	ret = file->f_op->fallocate(file, mode, pos, blk_rq_bytes(rq));
+	if (unlikely(ret && ret != -EINVAL && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP))
+		ret = -EIO;
+ out:
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int lo_req_flush(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
 {
 	struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
@@ -596,8 +618,15 @@ static int do_req_filebacked(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
 	switch (req_op(rq)) {
 	case REQ_OP_FLUSH:
 		return lo_req_flush(lo, rq);
-	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
 	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
+		/*
+		 * If the caller doesn't want deallocation, call zeroout to
+		 * write zeroes the range.  Otherwise, punch them out.
+		 */
+		if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOUNMAP)
+			return lo_zeroout(lo, rq, pos);
+		/* fall through */
+	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
 		return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
 	case REQ_OP_WRITE:
 		if (lo->transfer)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
  2019-10-11 16:05 ` [PATCH v2] " Darrick J. Wong
@ 2019-10-14  7:28   ` Christoph Hellwig
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-10-14  7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Darrick J. Wong
  Cc: Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

While this looks generally good to me, I have another nitpick to avoid
code duplication.  What about just renaming lo_discard to lo_fallocate
and pass the mode (possibly minus the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE flag) to it?

The in the do_req_filebacked we could further simplify it down to:

  	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
		/*
		 * If the caller doesn't want deallocation, call zeroout to
		 * write zeroes the range.  Otherwise, punch them out.
		 */
		return lo_fallocate(lo, rq, pos,
			(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOUNMAP) ?
				FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE : FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE);
		break;
	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
		return lo_fallocate(lo, rq, pos, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v3] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
  2019-10-10 17:02 [PATCH] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-11  7:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
  2019-10-11 16:05 ` [PATCH v2] " Darrick J. Wong
@ 2019-10-14 15:50 ` " Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-14 16:39   ` Eric Sandeen
  2019-10-15  7:58   ` Christoph Hellwig
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2019-10-14 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>

Currently, if the loop device receives a WRITE_ZEROES request, it asks
the underlying filesystem to punch out the range.  This behavior is
correct if unmapping is allowed.  However, a NOUNMAP request means that
the caller doesn't want us to free the storage backing the range, so
punching out the range is incorrect behavior.

To satisfy a NOUNMAP | WRITE_ZEROES request, loop should ask the
underlying filesystem to FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, which is (according to
the fallocate documentation) required to ensure that the entire range is
backed by real storage, which suffices for our purposes.

Fixes: 19372e2769179dd ("loop: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES")
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
---
v3: refactor into a single fallocate function
v2: reorganize a little according to hch feedback
---
 drivers/block/loop.c |   26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index f6f77eaa7217..ef6e251857c8 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -417,18 +417,20 @@ static int lo_read_transfer(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq,
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static int lo_discard(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
+static int lo_fallocate(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos,
+			int mode)
 {
 	/*
-	 * We use punch hole to reclaim the free space used by the
-	 * image a.k.a. discard. However we do not support discard if
-	 * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker
-	 * useful information.
+	 * We use fallocate to manipulate the space mappings used by the image
+	 * a.k.a. discard/zerorange. However we do not support this if
+	 * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker useful
+	 * information.
 	 */
 	struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
-	int mode = FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
 	int ret;
 
+	mode |= FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
+
 	if ((!file->f_op->fallocate) || lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
 		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
 		goto out;
@@ -596,9 +598,17 @@ static int do_req_filebacked(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
 	switch (req_op(rq)) {
 	case REQ_OP_FLUSH:
 		return lo_req_flush(lo, rq);
-	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
 	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
-		return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
+		/*
+		 * If the caller doesn't want deallocation, call zeroout to
+		 * write zeroes the range.  Otherwise, punch them out.
+		 */
+		return lo_fallocate(lo, rq, pos,
+			(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOUNMAP) ?
+				FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE :
+				FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE);
+	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
+		return lo_fallocate(lo, rq, pos, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE);
 	case REQ_OP_WRITE:
 		if (lo->transfer)
 			return lo_write_transfer(lo, rq, pos);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v3] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
  2019-10-14 15:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Darrick J. Wong
@ 2019-10-14 16:39   ` Eric Sandeen
  2019-10-14 17:00     ` Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-15  7:58   ` Christoph Hellwig
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2019-10-14 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Darrick J. Wong, Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig
  Cc: linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

On 10/14/19 10:50 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> 
> Currently, if the loop device receives a WRITE_ZEROES request, it asks
> the underlying filesystem to punch out the range.  This behavior is
> correct if unmapping is allowed.  However, a NOUNMAP request means that
> the caller doesn't want us to free the storage backing the range, so
> punching out the range is incorrect behavior.
> 
> To satisfy a NOUNMAP | WRITE_ZEROES request, loop should ask the
> underlying filesystem to FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, which is (according to
> the fallocate documentation) required to ensure that the entire range is
> backed by real storage, which suffices for our purposes.
> 
> Fixes: 19372e2769179dd ("loop: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES")
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> ---
> v3: refactor into a single fallocate function
> v2: reorganize a little according to hch feedback
> ---
>   drivers/block/loop.c |   26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index f6f77eaa7217..ef6e251857c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -417,18 +417,20 @@ static int lo_read_transfer(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq,
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> -static int lo_discard(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
> +static int lo_fallocate(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos,
> +			int mode)
>   {
>   	/*
> -	 * We use punch hole to reclaim the free space used by the
> -	 * image a.k.a. discard. However we do not support discard if
> -	 * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker
> -	 * useful information.
> +	 * We use fallocate to manipulate the space mappings used by the image
> +	 * a.k.a. discard/zerorange. However we do not support this if
> +	 * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker useful
> +	 * information.
>   	 */
>   	struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
> -	int mode = FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
>   	int ret;
>   
> +	mode |= FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
> +
>   	if ((!file->f_op->fallocate) || lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
>   		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>   		goto out;
> @@ -596,9 +598,17 @@ static int do_req_filebacked(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
>   	switch (req_op(rq)) {
>   	case REQ_OP_FLUSH:
>   		return lo_req_flush(lo, rq);
> -	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
>   	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
> -		return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
cxz ÿbvVBV
> +	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
> +		return lo_fallocate(lo, rq, pos, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE);

I get lost in the twisty passages.  What happens if the filesystem hosting the
backing file doesn't support fallocate, and REQ_OP_DISCARD / REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES
returns EOPNOTSUPP - discard is advisory, is it ok to fail REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES?
Does something at another layer fall back to writing zeros?

-Eric

>   	case REQ_OP_WRITE:
>   		if (lo->transfer)
>   			return lo_write_transfer(lo, rq, pos);
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v3] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
  2019-10-14 16:39   ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2019-10-14 17:00     ` Darrick J. Wong
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2019-10-14 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eric Sandeen
  Cc: Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:39:43AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 10/14/19 10:50 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > 
> > Currently, if the loop device receives a WRITE_ZEROES request, it asks
> > the underlying filesystem to punch out the range.  This behavior is
> > correct if unmapping is allowed.  However, a NOUNMAP request means that
> > the caller doesn't want us to free the storage backing the range, so
> > punching out the range is incorrect behavior.
> > 
> > To satisfy a NOUNMAP | WRITE_ZEROES request, loop should ask the
> > underlying filesystem to FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, which is (according to
> > the fallocate documentation) required to ensure that the entire range is
> > backed by real storage, which suffices for our purposes.
> > 
> > Fixes: 19372e2769179dd ("loop: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES")
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > v3: refactor into a single fallocate function
> > v2: reorganize a little according to hch feedback
> > ---
> >   drivers/block/loop.c |   26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> >   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > index f6f77eaa7217..ef6e251857c8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > @@ -417,18 +417,20 @@ static int lo_read_transfer(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq,
> >   	return ret;
> >   }
> > -static int lo_discard(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
> > +static int lo_fallocate(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos,
> > +			int mode)
> >   {
> >   	/*
> > -	 * We use punch hole to reclaim the free space used by the
> > -	 * image a.k.a. discard. However we do not support discard if
> > -	 * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker
> > -	 * useful information.
> > +	 * We use fallocate to manipulate the space mappings used by the image
> > +	 * a.k.a. discard/zerorange. However we do not support this if
> > +	 * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker useful
> > +	 * information.
> >   	 */
> >   	struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
> > -	int mode = FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
> >   	int ret;
> > +	mode |= FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
> > +
> >   	if ((!file->f_op->fallocate) || lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
> >   		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >   		goto out;
> > @@ -596,9 +598,17 @@ static int do_req_filebacked(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
> >   	switch (req_op(rq)) {
> >   	case REQ_OP_FLUSH:
> >   		return lo_req_flush(lo, rq);
> > -	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
> >   	case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
> > -		return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
> cxz ÿbvVBV

Yes.

> > +	case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
> > +		return lo_fallocate(lo, rq, pos, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE);
> 
> I get lost in the twisty passages.  What happens if the filesystem hosting the
> backing file doesn't support fallocate, and REQ_OP_DISCARD / REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES
> returns EOPNOTSUPP - discard is advisory, is it ok to fail REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES?
> Does something at another layer fall back to writing zeros?

If the REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES request was initiated by blkdev_issue_zeroout
and we send back an error code, blkdev_issue_zeroout will fall back to
writing zeroes if BLKDEV_ZERO_NOFALLBACK wasn't set its caller.

Note that calling FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE on a block device will generate
a REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES | REQ_OP_NOUNMAP request, which means that it will
try fallocate zeroing and fall back to writing zeroes.

--D

> 
> -Eric
> 
> >   	case REQ_OP_WRITE:
> >   		if (lo->transfer)
> >   			return lo_write_transfer(lo, rq, pos);
> > 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v3] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior
  2019-10-14 15:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Darrick J. Wong
  2019-10-14 16:39   ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2019-10-15  7:58   ` Christoph Hellwig
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-10-15  7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Darrick J. Wong
  Cc: Jens Axboe, Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, xfs

Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-10-10 17:02 [PATCH] loop: fix no-unmap write-zeroes request behavior Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-11  7:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 16:05 ` [PATCH v2] " Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-14  7:28   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-14 15:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-14 16:39   ` Eric Sandeen
2019-10-14 17:00     ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-15  7:58   ` Christoph Hellwig

Linux-Block Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/0 linux-block/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-block linux-block/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block \
		linux-block@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-block

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-block


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git