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;
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:04:09 -0400
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To:     Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Cc:     hch@lst.de, agk@redhat.com, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, snitzer@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        pankydev8@gmail.com, matias.bjorling@wdc.com,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, bvanassche@acm.org,
        gost.dev@samsung.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, hare@suse.de,
        jaegeuk@kernel.org, Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 13/13] dm: add power-of-2 target for zoned devices
 with non power-of-2 zone sizes
Message-ID: <YyS6mUzqjq9P0+OG@redhat.com>
References: <20220912082204.51189-1-p.raghav@samsung.com>
 <CGME20220912082220eucas1p24605fdcf22aedc4c40d5303da8f17ad5@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
 <20220912082204.51189-14-p.raghav@samsung.com>
 <YyIG3i++QriS9Gyy@redhat.com>
 <e42a0579-61b2-7b77-08cb-6723278490cc@samsung.com>
 <622ae86d-39ad-c45e-ec48-42abf4b257d2@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <622ae86d-39ad-c45e-ec48-42abf4b257d2@samsung.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 16 2022 at  1:57P -0400,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> Are you certain you shouldn't at least be exposing a different
> >> logical_block_size to upper layers?
> >>
> > To be honest, I tested my patches in QEMU with 4k Logical block size and on
> > a device with 4k LBA size.
> > 
> > I did a quick test with 512B LBA size in QEMU, and I didn't see any
> > failures when I ran my normal test suite.
> > 
> > Do you see any problem with exposing the same LBA as the underlying device?
> > 
> 
> Do you see any issues here? If not, I can send the next version with the
> other two changes you suggested.

That's fine, I just thought there might be special considerations
needed.  But if yo've tested it and upper layers work as expected then
obviously my concern wasn't applicable.

Thanks,
Mike