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: <dc89c70e-4931-baaf-c450-6801c200c1d7@acm.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:02:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/13] support zoned block devices with non-power-of-2
 zone sizes
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
        hch@lst.de, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc:     jaegeuk@kernel.org, agk@redhat.com, gost.dev@samsung.com,
        snitzer@kernel.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de,
        matias.bjorling@wdc.com, Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        pankydev8@gmail.com, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
References: <CGME20220923173619eucas1p13e645adbe1c8eb62fb48b52c0248ed65@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20220923173618.6899-1-p.raghav@samsung.com>
 <5e9d678f-ffea-e015-53d8-7e80f3deda1e@samsung.com>
 <bd9479f4-ff87-6e5d-296e-e31e669fb148@kernel.dk>
 <0e5088a5-5408-c5bd-bf97-00803cb5faed@acm.org>
 <90b6d45e-61a5-3eb3-7525-8467f1a67587@kernel.dk>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <90b6d45e-61a5-3eb3-7525-8467f1a67587@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/30/22 14:24, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Noted. I'll find some time to review this as well separately, once we're
> on the other side of the merge window.

Hi Jens,

Now that we are on the other side of the merge window: do you perhaps 
want Pankaj to repost this patch series? From what I have heard in 
several fora (JEDEC, SNIA) all flash storage vendors except one (WDC) 
are in favor of a contiguous LBA space and hence are in favor of 
supporting zone sizes that are not a power of two.

As you may know in JEDEC we are working on standardizing zoned storage 
for UFS devices. We (JEDEC JC-64.1 committee members) would like to know 
whether or not we should require that the UFS zone size should be a 
power of two.

Thank you,

Bart.