RE: [PATCH v7 0/3] FDP and per-io hints

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:21 AM
> To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>; Javier Gonzalez <[email protected]>;
> Keith Busch <[email protected]>; Martin K. Petersen
> <[email protected]>; Kanchan Joshi <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] FDP and per-io hints
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 11:08:26AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > I think that last argument is a straw man - for any kind of interface
> > like this, we've ALWAYS just had the rule that any per-whatever
> > overrides the generic setting.
> 
> And exactly that is the problem.  For file systems we can't support
> that sanely.  So IFF you absolutely want the per-I/O hints we need
> an opt in by the file operations.  I've said that at least twice
> in this discussion before, but as everyone likes to have political
> discussions instead of technical ones no one replied to that.

Is it a way forward to add this in a new spin of the series - keeping the 
temperature mapping on the NVMe side?

If not, what would be acceptable for a first version, before getting into adding
a new interface to expose agnostic hints?


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
the body to [email protected].  For more info on Linux AIO,
see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>