> If you can include it in a v2 series that would be nice.
Sure, I'll create a new version.
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:48:30PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > How about calculating the minimum of the limits?
>
> Sounds reasonable.
> Should I add it to this patch (as v2)?
> Or maybe it can be a follow up patch, and it can include the write
> zeros command as well.
If you can include it in
> How about calculating the minimum of the limits?
Sounds reasonable.
Should I add it to this patch (as v2)?
Or maybe it can be a follow up patch, and it can include the write
zeros command as well.
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.li
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > 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_r
> 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 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)) {
> +
