What should we do about the nvme atomics mess?
Christoph Hellwig
hch at lst.de
Tue Jul 8 02:47:48 PDT 2025
On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 09:56:53AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> I think the NVMe TWG might want to consider an ECN to deprecate or at
> least recommend against AUWPF, too.
Yeah. A wording that every controller SHOULD implement NAWUPF if it
implements AWUPF might be good, eventually upgraded to a SHALL.
> Just to throw AWUPF a lifeline for legecy devices, we could potentially
> make sense of the value if Identify Controller says:
>
> 1. CMIC == 0; and
> 2. OACS.NMS == 0; and
What is NMS meant to say? namespace management support?
> 3.
> a. FNA.FNS == 1; or
> b. NN == 1
>
> And if those conditions are true, then the controller and namespace
> scopes resolve to a single namespace format, so the values should be one
> in the same. The only way it could change, then, is a format command,
> which means there couldn't be an in-use filesystem depending on it not
> changing.
We could. But are there many controllers where that would be the
case and where people want to use atomics?
More information about the Linux-nvme
mailing list