[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC 0/5] Protection information pass-through for block devices
From: |
Dmitry Tihov |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC 0/5] Protection information pass-through for block devices |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Dec 2022 12:01:29 +0300 |
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:44:18, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> +CC: block layer maintainers (Kevin, Hanna)
>
> On Nov 24 18:58, Dmitry Tihov wrote:
> > This patch set allows using End-to-End Data Protection in NVMe subsystem
> > with integrity capable host devices as the NVMe namespaces backend.
> > The patch series is based on io-uring kernel interface feature not merged
> > to kernel upstream yet:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20220920144618.1111138-1-a.buev@yadro.com/
> >
> > The main advantage of this approach is that it allows using the
> > same protection information enabled disks in multiple VMs
> > concurrently. This may be useful in cluster setups.
> >
> > Please let me know what do you think, are this kind of changes appropriate
> > for QEMU upstream, what should be changed, etc.
> >
> > Dmitry Tihov (5):
> > docs/nvme: add new feature summary
> > block: add transfer of protection information
> > hw/nvme: add protection information pass parameter
> > hw/nvme: implement pi pass read/write/wrz commands
> > hw/nvme: extend pi pass capable commands
> >
> > block/file-posix.c | 130 ++++++++++++-
> > block/io_uring.c | 109 ++++++++++-
> > docs/system/devices/nvme.rst | 15 ++
> > hw/nvme/ctrl.c | 361 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > hw/nvme/dif.c | 303 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > hw/nvme/dif.h | 18 ++
> > hw/nvme/ns.c | 59 +++++-
> > hw/nvme/nvme.h | 2 +
> > hw/nvme/trace-events | 6 +
> > include/block/block-common.h | 2 +
> > include/block/raw-aio.h | 3 +-
> > include/qemu/iov.h | 6 +
> > util/iov.c | 24 +++
> > 13 files changed, 992 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.38.1
> >
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Neat.
>
> But this is largely depending on how the API turns out in block/ and I
> am not the right one to comment on that. It's great that you have an
> example device to utilize the API, but this needs comments from the
> block layer maintainers before we consider it in hw/nvme.
You mean API in QEMU block layer right? Specifically the second patch
of this series. Should I send it in a distinct RFC for review by block
layer maintainers?
- Re: [RFC 0/5] Protection information pass-through for block devices,
Dmitry Tihov <=