From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 B6C20EA6 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="NHsgO9qt" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1705021737; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type; bh=sDCb95jFyxMrcuhzrRucjLKEjA/5V27UJDAqMaRXmXw=; b=NHsgO9qtEC3xx7SJHvMaox4yaYyBpFxWC0X4e3/74J2Gz+r1HLW82+VDmbE5FZ+Eve/DHL HsuPZNCnQZ5ohbbfkuYCUnzKlKbnXEMu2gBRrBzwWkV7rjDDOc8bJ+C/buZpe9YyPWzl5m bHTM08nMlgLJHUOmp3C9+PB88SnL5rw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-189-wVzfvpbwNjiZRQsy1J4ggA-1; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:08:55 -0500 X-MC-Unique: wVzfvpbwNjiZRQsy1J4ggA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8972D1C06EC1; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.116.36]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A4DE2166B31; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:08:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:08:47 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Damien Le Moal Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com, Yi Zhang , John Meneghini Subject: [Report] blk-zoned/ZNS: non_power_of_2 of zone->len Message-ID: 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 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 Hello Damien and Guys, Yi reported that the following failure: Oct 18 15:24:15 localhost kernel: nvme nvme4: invalid zone size:196608 for namespace:1 Oct 18 15:24:33 localhost smartd[2303]: Device: /dev/nvme4, opened Oct 18 15:24:33 localhost smartd[2303]: Device: /dev/nvme4, NETAPPX4022S173A4T0NTZ, S/N:S66NNE0T800169, FW:MVP40B7B, 4.09 TB Looks current blk-zoned requires zone->len to be power_of_2() since commit: 6c6b35491422 ("block: set the zone size in blk_revalidate_disk_zones atomically") And the original power_of_2() requirement is from the following commit for ZBC and ZAC. d9dd73087a8b ("block: Enhance blk_revalidate_disk_zones()") Meantime block layer does support non-power_of_2 chunk sectors limit. The question is if there is such hard requirement for ZNS, and I can't see any such words in NVMe Zoned Namespace Command Set Specification. So is it one NVMe firmware issue? or blk-zoned problem with too strict(power_of_2) requirement on zone->len? Thanks, Ming