From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 80BFE1A3166; Sat, 13 Dec 2025 00:31:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765585870; cv=none; b=mFHHU6m41VQjJytVH718FweSLyW/SM1k3GmwCRE9L3lkzxpdAY9UAuAaZ2zaktahUDMdBgQTMJxu6rLJlhao8hrKP88WkBV/1Z19tJ0Bge/sLQ/05jeqoH7YPTBo0RtdEX75NSjBcoNvK/ziUZxZO8wD4Hovq+YOAa3ahlF6ErY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765585870; c=relaxed/simple; bh=17ENiVl2xlE53A1TFdyck5BEFA8vxguuF0MPpBPJssM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=aRiJauSCZvCFbAP1S/FvGGj9RP1HcHEdGkPQuWBuF1m8fV/9sFgoKz7HSELL0+GMN6JaeJ7oH+e9BPayZqS4AjwBkuzUHdbz7QQjTuqyL+J9I0nW8kcmxyX1zQdP72JqyXIOoXbLSu+/KCGxks2Pb/U4uY8St0mFzSIke9S8mgs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ka8jYNwD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ka8jYNwD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1C02C4CEF1; Sat, 13 Dec 2025 00:31:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1765585870; bh=17ENiVl2xlE53A1TFdyck5BEFA8vxguuF0MPpBPJssM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ka8jYNwDDJzWG/LmApz3i6asZgNIjTw275ntgUthJByZ9eYO/iwjZgg4qz+dMkSDW KBkNjkFRXSAc09GqCwzs5OeWSOIaA1qOgSHQjr2EHeQD1wJifNR6tYtAySGUzmGGBe VZu0waIkEgGz/MFAMUfo1+DgNtOa/+Hb7ek7h+CEazKuBEyImXhkBR/1fed6CwLrRm WODueBs9wpMhTGSR+v/dP1XvW18Vnq/NiIL+Fhg83acrNfUujL/cQXekGVzfvW6arc cij8i4Fh6aFzjQSeZy7SNFwZFCU2ad1GWYQwS4D9/TqiEpolssiB19saxtyMySF9V6 uQx4K854R08ug== Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2025 16:31:08 -0800 From: Eric Biggers To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] block: merge bio_split_rw_at into bio_split_io_at Message-ID: <20251213003108.GA2696@quark> References: <20251210152343.3666103-1-hch@lst.de> <20251210152343.3666103-4-hch@lst.de> 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: <20251210152343.3666103-4-hch@lst.de> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 04:23:32PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > bio_split_rw_at passes the queues dma_alignment into bio_split_io_at, > which that already checks unconditionally. Remove the len_align_mask > argument from bio_split_io_at and switch all users of bio_split_rw_at > to directly call bio_split_io_at. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig [...] > int bio_split_io_at(struct bio *bio, const struct queue_limits *lim, > - unsigned *segs, unsigned max_bytes, unsigned len_align_mask) > + unsigned *segs, unsigned max_bytes) > { > struct bio_vec bv, bvprv, *bvprvp = NULL; > unsigned nsegs = 0, bytes = 0, gaps = 0; > struct bvec_iter iter; > > bio_for_each_bvec(bv, bio, iter) { > - if (bv.bv_offset & lim->dma_alignment || > - bv.bv_len & len_align_mask) > + if (bv.bv_offset & lim->dma_alignment) > return -EINVAL; So this commit actually removes the alignment check for bv_len and leaves just the one for bv_offset. Does that make sense? The commit message doesn't really explain the actual change. Also, 'git grep bio_split_rw_at' still finds a result after this commit. - Eric