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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-12 5:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ 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 5:21 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-03-12 5:37 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-12 5:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 5:44 ` Luis Chamberlain
[not found] ` <CAEemH2du_ULgnX19YnCiAJnCNzAURW0R17Tgxpdy9tg-XzisHQ@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-12 13:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
[not found] ` <CAEemH2c_S_KMMQcyAp702N0DDBWrqOVxgz6GeS=RfVrUCJFE1Q@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-13 8:26 ` 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox