On Tue, 28 May 2019, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:36:32PM +, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> > Hi Lars,
> >
> > We just tried 4.19.x and this bugs still exists. We applied the patch
> > which was originally submitted to this thread and it still applies cleanly
> > and seems to w
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:36:32PM +, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> We just tried 4.19.x and this bugs still exists. We applied the patch
> which was originally submitted to this thread and it still applies cleanly
> and seems to work for our use case. You mentioned that you had some ol
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:26:15PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > NAK. Calling a discard and expecting zeroing is simply buggy.
>
> What he said.
>
> The bug/misunderstanding was that we now use zeroout even for discards,
> with the assumption t
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> NAK. Calling a discard and expecting zeroing is simply buggy.
But of course, that would be silly.
We don't expect discard to zero---but we do expect discard to discard!
> And double NAK for patches like this without a linux-block Cc.
My appologi
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:26:15PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> NAK. Calling a discard and expecting zeroing is simply buggy.
What he said.
The bug/misunderstanding was that we now use zeroout even for discards,
with the assumption that it would try to do discards where it can.
Which is ev
NAK. Calling a discard and expecting zeroing is simply buggy.
And double NAK for patches like this without a linux-block Cc.
From: Eric Wheeler
According to drbd.conf documentation, "To not break established and
expected behaviour, and suddenly cause fstrim on thin-provisioned LVs to
run out-of-space instead of freeing up space, the default value is yes."
This behavior regressed in the REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES refactor nea
7 matches
Mail list logo
