On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 03:30:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 09:24:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > Is is just me, or would it be a good idea to require an explicit > > > opt-in to user hardware atomics? > > > > How common do we think broken atomics implementations; is this > > something that we could solve using a blacklist of broken devices? > > I don't know. But cheap consumer SSDs can basically exhibit any > brokenness you can imagine. And claiming to support atomics basically > just means filling out a single field in identify with a non-zero > value. So my hopes of only seeing it in a few devices is low, > moreover we will only notice it was broken when people lost data. Do you want to handle it the same way as we do discard-zeroes-data and have a quirks list of devices we trust? Though I can hardly talk, knowing the severe limitations of allowlists vs. product managers trying to win benchmarks with custom firmware. :( --D
