> What about max_secure_erase_seg and secure_erase_sector_alignment?
Hi Stefan,
If I understand correctly, the Linux kernel uses the same "max
segments" value for a discard and a secure erase command.
> unsigned int blk_recalc_rq_segments(struct request *rq)
> {
> unsigned int nr_phys_segs =
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 16:30 -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:18:52PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 15:14:10 -0400 Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > Stefano will be online again on Monday. I suggest we wait for him to
> > > review this series. If it's urge
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:50:05PM +0900, Suwan Kim wrote:
> @@ -409,6 +409,8 @@ static bool virtblk_add_req_batch(struct virtio_blk_vq
> *vq,
> virtblk_unmap_data(req, vbr);
> virtblk_cleanup_cmd(req);
> rq_list_add(requeue_list, r
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:18:52PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 15:14:10 -0400 Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Stefano will be online again on Monday. I suggest we wait for him to
> > review this series. If it's urgent, please let me know and I'll take a
> > look.
>
> It was alrea
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:20:55PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> @@ -1075,6 +1079,12 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(q, v ? v : UINT_MAX);
> }
>
> + if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SECURE_ERASE)) {
> +
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:21:58AM +, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patchset includes some updates for SO_RCVLOWAT:
>
> 1) af_vsock:
>During my experiments with zerocopy receive, i found, that in some
>cases, poll() implementation violates POSIX: when socket has non-
>d
* Indexed in Scopus, WoS, DBLP, etc.
* Google Scholar H5-Index = 15
ICITS'23 - The 6th International Conference on Information Technology & Systems
Cusco, Peru, 8 - 10 February 20
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 3:01 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 22.08.22 um 19:26 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
> > On 8/16/22 22:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> On 8/16/22 15:03, Christian König wrote:
> >>> Am 16.08.22 um 13:44 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
> [SNIP]
> > The other complication I not
Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 08:20:48AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 07:51:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > In order to make the underneath API easier to change in the future,
> > prevent users from dereferencing fwnode from struct device.
> > Instead, use the spec
Am 22.08.22 um 19:26 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
On 8/16/22 22:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
On 8/16/22 15:03, Christian König wrote:
Am 16.08.22 um 13:44 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
[SNIP]
The other complication I noticed is that we don't seem to keep around
the fd after importing to a GEM handle. A
11 matches
Mail list logo
