public inbox for linux-block@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
	Kexin Wei <ys.weikexin@h3c.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] block: remove test of io priority level
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 16:29:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250429082934.GA3896701@bytedance> (raw)

Ever since commit eca2040972b4("scsi: block: ioprio: Clean up interface
definition"), the io priority level is masked and can no longer be larger
than IOPRIO_NR_LEVELS so remove this now useless test.

The actual test of io prio level is done in ioprio_value() where any
invalid input of class/level/hint will result in an invalid class being
passed to the syscall, this is introduced in commit 01584c1e2337("scsi: 
block: Improve ioprio value validity checks").

Reported-by: Kexin Wei <ys.weikexin@h3c.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
---
Kexin reported a LTP/ioprio_set03 case failure, where the test would
pass IOPRIO_CLASS_BE with priority level 8 and see if kernel would
return error. Turned out she is using an old kernel header where the
change introduced in commit 01584c1e2337("scsi: block: Improve ioprio
value validity checks") isn't available. During troubleshooting, I find
this priority level test confusing and misleading so I think it should
be removed.

 block/ioprio.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/ioprio.c b/block/ioprio.c
index 73301a261429f..60364d3faf800 100644
--- a/block/ioprio.c
+++ b/block/ioprio.c
@@ -46,11 +46,8 @@ int ioprio_check_cap(int ioprio)
 			 */
 			if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE))
 				return -EPERM;
-			fallthrough;
-			/* rt has prio field too */
+			break;
 		case IOPRIO_CLASS_BE:
-			if (level >= IOPRIO_NR_LEVELS)
-				return -EINVAL;
 			break;
 		case IOPRIO_CLASS_IDLE:
 			break;
-- 
2.39.5


             reply	other threads:[~2025-04-29  8:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-29  8:29 Aaron Lu [this message]
2025-04-29 10:50 ` [PATCH] block: remove test of io priority level Damien Le Moal
2025-04-29 11:44   ` [External] " Aaron Lu
2025-04-29 12:24     ` 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=20250429082934.GA3896701@bytedance \
    --to=ziqianlu@bytedance.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ys.weikexin@h3c.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