On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 02:10:37PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 07:07:34PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > > sounds good. Add a code comment?
> >
> > I will.
> >
> > > yes but I now see two places that seem to include this logic.
> >
> >
> > Yes, this is because the s
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 02:11:40PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:09:05PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > > This can be simplified with min_not_zero().
> >
> > Ok, I will do it in the next version.
> >
> > > It's worth including a comment
> Okay, I have replied in the max_secure_erase_seg sub-thread. I think
> probing the device should fail if the value is 0. There are no existing
> non-compliant devices that we need to be compatible with - let's
> encourage device implementors to report usable max_secure_erase_seg
> values.
Ok, I
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:09:05PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> > This can be simplified with min_not_zero().
>
> Ok, I will do it in the next version.
>
> > It's worth including a comment here that the discard and secure erase
> > limits are combined because the Linux
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 07:07:34PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > sounds good. Add a code comment?
>
> I will.
>
> > yes but I now see two places that seem to include this logic.
>
>
> Yes, this is because the same logic is applied on 2 different pairs.
>
> * secure_erase_sector_alignment and
Thanks for the reply.
> This can be simplified with min_not_zero().
Ok, I will do it in the next version.
> It's worth including a comment here that the discard and secure erase
> limits are combined because the Linux block layer only has one limit
> value. If the block layer supported independe
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 11:23:13AM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> @@ -1075,6 +1068,57 @@ 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)) {
> +
> sounds good. Add a code comment?
I will.
> yes but I now see two places that seem to include this logic.
Yes, this is because the same logic is applied on 2 different pairs.
* secure_erase_sector_alignment and discard_sector_alignment are used
to calculate q->limits.discard_granularity.
*
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 05:01:53PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> > why minimum?
>
> > why is that?
>
> This was discussed in the previous version
> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-virtualization/msg58232.html).
> As far as I know, the Linux kernel uses the same "ma
Thanks for the reply.
> why minimum?
> why is that?
This was discussed in the previous version
(https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-virtualization/msg58232.html).
As far as I know, the Linux kernel uses the same "max segments" value
for a discard and a secure erase command.
In the first version
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 11:23:13AM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> Support for the VIRTIO_BLK_F_SECURE_ERASE VirtIO feature.
>
> A device that offers this feature can receive VIRTIO_BLK_T_SECURE_ERASE
> commands.
>
> A device which supports this feature has the following fields in the
> virtio confi
Hi,
Anyone have any comments on the patch?
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Is that what you meant Stefan?
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Support for the VIRTIO_BLK_F_SECURE_ERASE VirtIO feature.
A device that offers this feature can receive VIRTIO_BLK_T_SECURE_ERASE
commands.
A device which supports this feature has the following fields in the
virtio config:
- max_secure_erase_sectors
- max_secure_erase_seg
- secure_erase_sector_
14 matches
Mail list logo
