From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: liwang@redhat.com, brauner@kernel.org, hare@suse.de,
willy@infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com, djwong@kernel.org,
kbusch@kernel.org, john.g.garry@oracle.com, hch@lst.de,
ritesh.list@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ltp@lists.linux.it, lkp@intel.com,
oliver.sang@intel.com, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
gost.dev@samsung.com, p.raghav@samsung.com, da.gomez@samsung.com,
kernel@pankajraghav.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: add BLK_FEAT_LBS to check for PAGE_SIZE limit
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:21:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250312052155.GA11864@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250312050028.1784117-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 10:00:28PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> We should take time to validate each block driver before enabling
> support for larger logical block sizes, so that those that didn't
> have support stay that way and don't need modifications.
>
> Li Wang reported this as a regression on LTP via:
>
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop06
>
> Which uses the loopback driver to enable larger logical block sizes
> first with LOOP_CONFIGURE and then LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE. While
> I see no reason why the loopback block driver can't support
> larger logical block sizes than PAGE_SIZE, leave this validation
> step as a secondary effort for each block driver.
This doesn't really make sense. We don't want a flag that caps driver
controlled values at a arbitrary value (and then not used it at all in
the patch).
If you need extra per-driver validatation, do it in the driver.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: p.raghav@samsung.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com, brauner@kernel.org,
lkp@intel.com, kernel@pankajraghav.com, john.g.garry@oracle.com,
da.gomez@samsung.com, djwong@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, willy@infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
hare@suse.de, gost.dev@samsung.com, kbusch@kernel.org,
oliver.sang@intel.com, hch@lst.de, ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] block: add BLK_FEAT_LBS to check for PAGE_SIZE limit
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:21:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250312052155.GA11864@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250312050028.1784117-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 10:00:28PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> We should take time to validate each block driver before enabling
> support for larger logical block sizes, so that those that didn't
> have support stay that way and don't need modifications.
>
> Li Wang reported this as a regression on LTP via:
>
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop06
>
> Which uses the loopback driver to enable larger logical block sizes
> first with LOOP_CONFIGURE and then LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE. While
> I see no reason why the loopback block driver can't support
> larger logical block sizes than PAGE_SIZE, leave this validation
> step as a secondary effort for each block driver.
This doesn't really make sense. We don't want a flag that caps driver
controlled values at a arbitrary value (and then not used it at all in
the patch).
If you need extra per-driver validatation, do it in the driver.
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-12 5:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-12 5:00 [PATCH] block: add BLK_FEAT_LBS to check for PAGE_SIZE limit Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-12 5:00 ` [LTP] " Luis Chamberlain via ltp
2025-03-12 5:21 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-03-12 5:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 5:37 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-12 5:37 ` [LTP] " Luis Chamberlain via ltp
2025-03-12 5:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 5:40 ` [LTP] " Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 5:44 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-12 5:44 ` [LTP] " Luis Chamberlain via ltp
2025-03-12 9:19 ` Li Wang
2025-03-12 13:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 13:59 ` [LTP] " Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-13 2:54 ` Li Wang
2025-03-13 8:26 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-03-13 8:26 ` [LTP] " Hannes Reinecke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250312052155.GA11864@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=da.gomez@samsung.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@pankajraghav.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liwang@redhat.com \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.