Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:56:49 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] nvme: add cse, ds, ms, nsze and nuse to sysfs
Message-ID: <20231127155649.GA1403@lst.de>
References: <20231127103208.25748-1-dwagner@suse.de> <20231127141857.GA25833@lst.de> <ZWS5dM5FzTMr5ftO@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZWS5dM5FzTMr5ftO@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:44:52AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > I'd probably spell out metadata_size, or probably even better
> > metadata_bytes to match the unit postfixes elsewhere in the block code.
> 
> Should this even be an nvme specific attribute? I thought we should have
> blk-integrity.c report its 'tuple_size' attribute instead. That should
> work as long as we're not dealing with extended metadata at least, but
> that's kind of a special format that doesn't have block layer support.

Reporting the tuple size is a good idea.  But is that enough for
the existing nvme-cli use case?