[PATCH 0/6] ZNS: Extra features for current patches

[Javier González]

On 25.06.2020 21:53, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>On 25/06/2020 21.39, Javier González wrote:
>>On 25.06.2020 16:48, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>>On 25/06/2020 15.04, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>>>On 25/06/2020 14.21, Javier González wrote:
>>>>>From: Javier González <javier.gonz at samsung.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>This patchset extends zoned device functionality on top of the 
>>>>>existing
>>>>>v3 ZNS patchset that Keith sent last week.
>>>>>
>>>>>Patches 1-5 are zoned block interface and IOCTL additions to 
>>>>>expose ZNS
>>>>>values to user-space. One major change is the addition of a new zone
>>>>>management IOCTL that allows to extend zone management commands with
>>>>>flags. I recall a conversation in the mailing list from early 
>>>>>this year
>>>>>where a similar approach was proposed by Matias, but never made it
>>>>>upstream. We extended the IOCTL here to align with the 
>>>>>comments in that
>>>>>thread. Here, we are happy to get sign-offs by anyone that contributed
>>>>>to the thread - just comment here or on the patch.
>>>>
>>>>The original patchset is available here: 
>>>>https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/21/419
>>>>
>>>>We wanted to wait posting our updated patches until the base 
>>>>patches were upstream. I guess the cat is out of the bag. :)
>>>>
>>>>For the open/finish/reset patch, you'll want to take a look at 
>>>>the original patchset, and apply the feedback from that thread 
>>>>to your patch. Please also consider the users of these 
>>>>operations, e.g., dm, scsi, null_blk, etc. The original patchset 
>>>>has patches for that.
>>>>
>>>Please disregard the above - I forgot that the original patchset 
>>>actually went upstream.
>>>
>>>You're right that we discussed (I at least discussed it internally 
>>>with Damien, but I can't find the mail) having one mgmt issuing 
>>>the commands. We didn't go ahead and added it at that point due to 
>>>ZNS still being in a fluffy state.
>>>
>>
>>Does the proposed IOCTL align with the use cases you have in mind? I'm
>>happy to take it in a different series if you want to add patches to it
>>for other drivers (scsi, null_blk, etc.).
>
>I think the ioctl makes sense. I wanted to have it like that 
>originally. I'm still thinking through if it covers the short-term 
>cases for the upcoming TPs.

Yes. You can see that some of this is intended to support at least one
of the TPs that are in the TWG. It is also suitable for a couple TPs we
are working on internally and expect to bring to the group.

But please, do make sure it covers TPs that you know will be shared in
the TWG.

Javier