Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] null_blk: allow byte aligned memory offsets

[Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 01:01:31PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >  static blk_status_t copy_to_nullb(struct nullb *nullb, void *source,
> > -				  sector_t sector, size_t n, bool is_fua)
> > +				  loff_t pos, size_t n, bool is_fua)
> 
> Is it just me, or is n are way to non-descriptive argument name?  Can
> we fix that if you touch it anyway?
> 
> >  {
> >  	size_t temp, count = 0;
> > -	unsigned int offset;
> >  	struct nullb_page *t_page;
> > +	sector_t sector;
> >  
> >  	while (count < n) {
> 
> And count here should be done of offset.  I really had a bit of a hard
> time following the code due to the naming.
> 
> >  static blk_status_t null_transfer(struct nullb *nullb, struct page *page,
> > -	unsigned int len, unsigned int off, bool is_write, sector_t sector,
> > +	unsigned int len, unsigned int off, bool is_write, loff_t pos,
> >  	bool is_fua)
> 
> .. and the indentation here could use fixing if we touch it anyway.

I actually had an earlier branch with all sorts of little refactors like
what you're mentioning. I don't even like the loops counting upward: we
can remove "count" entirely and loop backwards from "n".

Anyway, it started to look like all those little cleanups were
distracting from the feature, but I can redo the series with more prep
patches to tidy things up.