From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEBBF1DA62E; Sat, 13 Dec 2025 03:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765596128; cv=none; b=uY8YiJgxZ2sFDlEdig3N9f/2Sw1ITbo5ssOj6vKIJORi4D7saDDhmIasCooTOhuqzPhwmUmcPDYO41EvIyuaiDv2+bc6NxgSsE+nl4WjBZ5yzAHlJyDH1Nl6JhMo7qKilI5dgsuZNpzESjIdbQwCqGv6tUsLUia/x8tnCIdeXTw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765596128; c=relaxed/simple; bh=L7FjBtsu/BACLmDZZlXXlkdfPTX7MJnwlvXisvxNnsA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=E1gJjdevP0b1WW+i+0oQrVszWz+WM1tJTHicjOqugWJxMDYS78wB0sw98kX/MnV2er9JJ19o4xQmRC55KkJLAbwrW8dXgk7MufJJLnIuAWzA7c2EqpkqFEoxIxLu+0/gFO4GWerh624VF9TIOB5blq2UjM/zWxgxZQae4ID2cGk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qcLOA+Em; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="qcLOA+Em" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50AECC4CEF7; Sat, 13 Dec 2025 03:22:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1765596126; bh=L7FjBtsu/BACLmDZZlXXlkdfPTX7MJnwlvXisvxNnsA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=qcLOA+EmQCqNlMROt6F27MBAMXEsaHbt6E+K6b5RsF6hmN/X/qkJebMM5JGiLLKOm 1tkTsRnPwh5YMFklCSrvIQ9AtoiePkp2Q2vzT70jxbnwsABKWLn+XPUK703L5E+S+G xKw1IzWynF4rRo6zk/kOuOA5czUcQnXIzNo1wCVUj3cEqTZp8J6O3QEMwFytIo7h8j PU7z1kR+b0MSYSHpwcJK0LDGCz7LUDprd0oS9a3uD3wQP4ACx3iL9WqVTjsitZ6jZR ekZY8jGWNgDdoTzJ/VOp8mVNzLEdND3yUZrtoVqauSYvchCWATBIV6r8mohoCfsMeX lHfGkaYCUhB2Q== Message-ID: <8b2c4fac-81be-4937-9619-c32813ab2650@kernel.org> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 12:22:02 +0900 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [v1 0/2] enable sector size > PAGE_SIZE for scsi To: Swarna Prabhu Cc: James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, bvanassche@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, kernel@pankajraghav.com References: <20251210014136.2549405-1-sw.prabhu6@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Damien Le Moal Organization: Western Digital Research In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025/12/12 9:18, Swarna Prabhu wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 05:56:05PM -0800, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 2025/12/09 17:41, sw.prabhu6@gmail.com wrote: >>> From: Swarna Prabhu >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> This is non RFC v1 series sent based on the feedback received on RFC >>> v2 [1] and RFC v1 [2]. This patchset enables sector sizes > PAGE_SIZE for >>> sd driver and scsi_debug driver since block layer can support block >>> size > PAGE_SIZE. There was one issue with write_same16 and write_same10 >>> command, which is fixed as a part of the series. >>> >>> Motivation: >>> - While enabling LBS on ZoneFS, zonefs-tools tests were being skipped >>> for conventional zones when tested on nvme block device emulated using >>> QEMU. Hence there was a need to enable scsi with higher sector sizes >>> to run zonefs tests for conventional zones as well. >> >> This is super confusing: there are no conventional zones with NVMe. And why >> would a problem with NVMe require scsi patches ? >> > Agree with you. NVME Zoned Namespace require sequential writes. > > Our initial goal was to enable LBS on Zonefs. Running zonefs tests > on a scsi device covered both conventional and sequential zone based > tests. So we had to enable higher sector sizes on scsi device and while > doing so fix the issue seen with WRITE SAME commands with higher sector > sizes. OK. Understood. But since this is in the end a scsi fix that is not directly related to zonefs (zonefs does not use write same), I think you can drop any mention of zonefs to avoid any confusion. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research