From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Greg Edwards <gedwards@ddn.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org"
<kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: make blk_queue_zone_sectors() return sector_t type
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 07:31:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190410073126.GP6070@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR04MB5816CFE5C37FABB137D496DEE72E0@BYAPR04MB5816.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 07:20:27AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2019/04/10 15:10, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > My static checker complains about this line from dmz_get_zoned_device()
> >
> > aligned_capacity = dev->capacity & ~(blk_queue_zone_sectors(q) - 1);
> >
> > The problem is that "aligned_capacity" and "dev->capacity" are sector_t
> > type (which is a u64) but blk_queue_zone_sectors(q) returns a u32 so the
> > higher 32 bits in aligned_capacity are always cleared to zero.
> >
> > Declaring blk_queue_zone_sectors() as a sector_t addresses this warning
> > and it feels intuitive based on the function name. I updated
> > bdev_zone_sectors() as well just to be consistent.
> >
> > Fixes: 114e025968b5 ("dm zoned: ignore last smaller runt zone")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > Please review this one extra carefully. I'm not positive it's correct.
> >
> > include/linux/blkdev.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > index 4b85dc066264..1785a7f506be 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static inline bool blk_queue_is_zoned(struct request_queue *q)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static inline unsigned int blk_queue_zone_sectors(struct request_queue *q)
> > +static inline sector_t blk_queue_zone_sectors(struct request_queue *q)
> > {
> > return blk_queue_is_zoned(q) ? q->limits.chunk_sectors : 0;
> > }
> > @@ -1419,7 +1419,7 @@ static inline bool bdev_is_zoned(struct block_device *bdev)
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline unsigned int bdev_zone_sectors(struct block_device *bdev)
> > +static inline sector_t bdev_zone_sectors(struct block_device *bdev)
> > {
> > struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
>
> Indeed, using sector_t instead of unsigned int is more intuitive and changing to
> sector_t matches the 64bits zone length in struct blk_zone too, so no problem on
> this front.
>
> However, q->limits.chunk_sectors is an unsigned int, which is why I used that
> type, to reflect the fact that even though the API allows values larger than 4G
> sectors, the handling through the queue limits truncates that to at most 4G-1
> sectors. Furthermore, the unsigned int type is used wherever
> blk_queue_zone_sectors() and bdev_zone_sectors() are called (block/ioctl.c,
> block/blk-zoned.c, f2fs, etc). That needs in depth checking.
>
> I would rather keep the unsigned int since the queue limits will give only 32
> bit values anyway. What about a cast for the aligned capacity line ? Something like:
>
> aligned_capacity = dev->capacity & ~((u64)blk_queue_zone_sectors(q) - 1);
>
> Would that make your checker happy ?
>
Yeah. Or a sector_t cast.
aligned_capacity = dev->capacity & ~((sector_t)blk_queue_zone_sectors(q) - 1);
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-10 7:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-10 6:10 [PATCH] block: make blk_queue_zone_sectors() return sector_t type Dan Carpenter
2019-04-10 7:20 ` Damien Le Moal
2019-04-10 7:31 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2019-04-10 7:47 ` [PATCH v2] dm zoned: Silence a static checker warning Dan Carpenter
2019-04-10 7:56 ` Damien Le Moal
2019-04-10 8:03 ` Dan Carpenter
2019-04-10 8:06 ` [dm-devel] " Damien Le Moal
2019-04-10 8:12 ` [PATCH v3] " Dan Carpenter
2019-04-10 8:14 ` Damien Le Moal
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=20190410073126.GP6070@kadam \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=gedwards@ddn.com \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=osandov@fb.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox