Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:00:24 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        Enrico Granata <egranata@google.com>, jasowang@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_blk: Add support for lifetime feature
Message-ID: <20210412074309-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20210330231602.1223216-1-egranata@google.com>
 <YHQQL1OTOdnuOYUW@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
 <20210412094217.GA981912@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210412094217.GA981912@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:42:17AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> A note to the virtio committee:  eMMC is the worst of all the currently
> active storage standards by a large margin.  It defines very strange
> ad-hoc interfaces that expose very specific internals and often provides
> very poor abstractions.

Are we talking about the lifetime feature here?  UFS has it too right?
It's not too late to
change things if necessary... it would be great if you could provide
more of the feedback on this on the TC mailing list.

> It would be great it you could reach out to the
> wider storage community before taking bad ideas from the eMMC standard
> and putting it into virtio.

Noted.  It would be great if we had more representation from the storage
community ... meanwhile what would a good forum for this be?
linux-block@vger.kernel.org ?
Thanks,

-- 
MST