On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 02:39:54PM +0100, John Garry wrote: > On 14/07/2025 14:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm currently trying to sort out the nvme atomics limits mess, and > > between that, the lack of a atomic write command in nvme, and the > > overall degrading quality of cheap consumer nvme devices I'm starting > > to free really uneasy about XFS using hardware atomics by default without > > an explicit opt-in, as broken atomics implementations will lead to > > really subtle data corruption. > > > > Is is just me, or would it be a good idea to require an explicit > > opt-in to user hardware atomics? > > But isn't this just an NVMe issue? I would assume that we would look at such > an option in the NVMe driver (to opt in when we are concerned about the > implementation), and not the FS. SCSI is ok AFAIK. SCSI is a better standard, and modulo USB devices doesn't have as much of an issue with cheap consumer devices. But form the file system POV we've spent the last decade or so hardening file systems against hardware failures, so now suddenly using such a high risk feature automatically feels a bit odd.
