On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 10:29 -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:19:28AM -0700, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 09:37 -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > The available_size attribute returns all the unused regions, but a
> > namespace has to use contiguous free regions. This patch uses the
> > attribute returning the largest capacity that can be created for
> > determining if the namespace can be created.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch(a)intel.com>
> > ---
> > ndctl/lib/libndctl.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > ndctl/lib/libndctl.sym | 1 +
> > ndctl/libndctl.h | 2 ++
> > ndctl/namespace.c | 2 +-
> > 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> The patch looks good, but just a couple of 'meta' comments.
> 1. We typically send ndctl patches separately from kernel patches (i.e.
> not
> thraded together).
> 2. for ndctl patches, an 'ndctl PATCH' prefix is recommended. You can
> set a
> repo local config parameter for doing this automatically on git format-
> patch.
> git config format.subjectprefix "ndctl PATCH"
>
> I'm thinking the kernel changes will be queued for 4.19, which means
> the
> ndctl changes will go into v62.
Thanks for the info. I'll make those changes for next time.
I think I may need to send a v2 for this. Should we have this fall back
to
the available_size for the older kernels where the max_available_extents
attribute is not provided? I actually had that in my repo and used a
slightly older patch here, but I'm not sure if its okay to strongly
couple an ndctl release to a kernel version.
I was thinking that too. Typically we don't guarantee ndctl to work with
old kernels, but this does seem like a bit of an invasive change.
Dan, thoughts?