On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 06:35:10PM +0100, anthony wrote: > On 26/08/2025 10:14, Yu Kuai wrote: > > > Umm, that's actually a red flag. If a device guarantees atomic behavior > > > it can't just fail it. So I think REQ_ATOMIC should be disallowed > > > for md raid with bad block tracking. > > > > > > > I agree that do not look good, however, John explained while adding this > > that user should retry and fallback without REQ_ATOMIC to make things > > work as usual. > > Whether a device promises atomic write is orthogonal to whether that write > succeeds - it could fail for a whole host of reasons, so why can't "this is > too big to be atomic" just be another reason for failing? Too big to be atomic is a valid failure reason. But the limit needs to be documented in the queue limits beforehand.
