Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5927dc09-89ca-973a-2e24-99be696d4240@samsung.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:55:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] zonefs: allow non power of 2 zoned devices
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
        <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, <axboe@kernel.dk>, <snitzer@kernel.org>,
        <hch@lst.de>, <mcgrof@kernel.org>, <naohiro.aota@wdc.com>,
        <sagi@grimberg.me>, <dsterba@suse.com>,
        <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <clm@fb.com>,
        <gost.dev@samsung.com>, <chao@kernel.org>, <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        <jonathan.derrick@linux.dev>, <agk@redhat.com>,
        <kbusch@kernel.org>, <kch@nvidia.com>,
        <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>, <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        <jiangbo.365@bytedance.com>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <matias.bjorling@wdc.com>, <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
From:   Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <a68a2d40-dff4-bac6-bb05-57c5c88af66e@opensource.wdc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
CMS-TYPE: 201P
References: <20220427160255.300418-1-p.raghav@samsung.com>
        <CGME20220427160309eucas1p2f677c8db581616f994473f17c4a5bd44@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
        <20220427160255.300418-13-p.raghav@samsung.com>
        <bfc1ddc3-5db3-6879-b6ab-210a00b82c6b@opensource.wdc.com>
        <c490bd45-deab-8c2b-151c-c8db9f97e10c@samsung.com>
        <a68a2d40-dff4-bac6-bb05-57c5c88af66e@opensource.wdc.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Damien,
On 2022-04-28 23:49, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> This is still not convincing given the code I saw. Additional test cases
> need to be added with data verification & concurrent regular writes also
> sent while doing copy to verify locking.
> 
> Which also reminds me that I have not seen any change to mq-deadline zone
> write locking for this series. What is the assumption ? That users should
> not be issuing writes when a copy is on-going ? What a bout the reverse
> case ? at the very least, it seems that blk_issue_copy() should be taking
> the zone write lock.
> 
I think you posted this comment in this thread instead of posting it in
the copy offload thread.

>> I will make sure to add my private tree for zonefs in my cover letter in
>> the next rev. But even without that change, a typical emulated npo2
>> device should work fine because the changes are applicable only for
>> "runt" zones.
> 
>