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: <6ac6c0b3-ca3a-27da-0b8f-b4c39671bdab@acm.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 06:30:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/11] support non power of 2 zoned device
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
        damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, hch@lst.de, axboe@kernel.dk,
        snitzer@kernel.org, Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com
Cc:     matias.bjorling@wdc.com, gost.dev@samsung.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, pankydev8@gmail.com,
        jaegeuk@kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
References: <CGME20220727162246eucas1p1a758799f13d36ba99d30bf92cc5e2754@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20220727162245.209794-1-p.raghav@samsung.com>
 <51255650-ddc2-4f3d-52e5-14007b9ff538@acm.org>
 <e0606903-c007-43f1-538f-b70ee607be0a@samsung.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <e0606903-c007-43f1-538f-b70ee607be0a@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/28/22 04:57, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> Hi Bart,
> 
> On 2022-07-28 01:19, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 7/27/22 09:22, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
>>> This series adds support to npo2 zoned devices in the block and nvme
>>> layer and a new **dm target** is added: dm-po2z-target. This new
>>> target will be initially used for filesystems such as btrfs and
>>> f2fs that does not have native npo2 zone support.
>>
>> Should any SCSI changes be included in this patch series? From sd_zbc.c:
>>
>>      if (!is_power_of_2(zone_blocks)) {
>>          sd_printk(KERN_ERR, sdkp,
>>                "Zone size %llu is not a power of two.\n",
>>                zone_blocks);
>>          return -EINVAL;
>>      }
>>
> I would keep these changes out of the current patch series because it
> will also increase the test scope. I think once the block layer
> constraint is removed as a part of this series, we can work on the SCSI
> changes in the next cycle.

That's fine with me.

Thanks,

Bart.