From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCAA31A5BA9; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:22:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741756923; cv=none; b=i5pm8lnV3W1/O3yY/ILf7YBM6snDtJoOYt4TQGzspKdLJp7T7fQ3XBVHC76VHfo0ly6SywjGgChbE/NeEmRa4TXG2JN8cXitdn3yXG6f1hVsHvl4lGM9UTIYAHRHaC34bnFAGzYuWniqBOcrHgvlz++nVoI4RP4sTs6gu0K5WDE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741756923; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+UarTk2Wmk4BKhE4e0mZGuUq+ZHoPat8GnsIvaErEiE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FJs7SSB/OMrbjStt//+MDI2mQel4Pr4UNAsMGGU6TwGfSwrS15gGyd6Si3HRN0BBHmWNcTo1xzBZ9sz/bTfyFUiPt3lTVinihI6TxUN3z3YCxLoQj+sx+/0OgHBNlBOBpLgV1ioJBeGEAwbEQ6E4Fz5ewNsvKE2TnbL1tpAtgQs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id BFAD568AA6; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:21:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:21:55 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Luis Chamberlain 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 Message-ID: <20250312052155.GA11864@lst.de> References: <20250312050028.1784117-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250312050028.1784117-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2CAAC28B28 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:22:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE4D3C9365 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:22:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33A433C075B for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:22:00 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-2.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lst.de (client-ip=213.95.11.211; helo=verein.lst.de; envelope-from=hch@lst.de; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F117D600624 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:21:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id BFAD568AA6; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:21:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:21:55 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Luis Chamberlain Message-ID: <20250312052155.GA11864@lst.de> References: <20250312050028.1784117-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250312050028.1784117-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] block: add BLK_FEAT_LBS to check for PAGE_SIZE limit X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" 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