From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ot1-f49.google.com (mail-ot1-f49.google.com [209.85.210.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34335286A4 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:48:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770900524; cv=none; b=gzriXcTfxRFLJxODdJ1Q+bcsyNZvhpYvN6FXbpvNcoS54UNKz+AgAPhIBCrRxjUFX7cYz4Em8tHOezaEr5HPr0v+UZQDS3W3ux5/UDflveS6KQ9JLXkaTa6HZscWgTEqnIf0w5Txp2VEnQ6OkqGRGdtdd9Ux9i/0Fus7o4akwwI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770900524; c=relaxed/simple; bh=a8KN6ahQn7rCW2n3Xxn/+xey0Z/suL5dtI8q5KSnQqg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nuQ2Ao3Ft1IxdMl8brCvfIVKGHBr8N87gBY6LcKlFHy6CjrDyUdLyI1eVgwlyBmElaNstsQ3aqV9DzIKldVP5onocjviiVNqlYTZnfWac6LTwe1eEfC/VodoEwxTqRT8WageEmmtOf1zoJPCzmsQHweESfo9aPiaB+a9ZxpLdDQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=M7+yY1hE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="M7+yY1hE" Received: by mail-ot1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-7d18d0e6d71so4214900a34.1 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 04:48:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1770900521; x=1771505321; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YhhgOb9LysbVG9bbVsQCWTAloOdIqGb1FGL7MbEAI0c=; b=M7+yY1hEulvzqrFHHaf1QtQrLmq5NXwV51s4JQkhCsh2W9Q6+kHvZwnTiWpSRk4AYX brM+7sTKIqfTHOFpNKHYQuUmHLP0i9Obep7vMu4yUzYcCuqprsPXNBjbhXgzSVksFwPJ wStVd3Cvtrb9I/vYaux1A38JL7r6ghedQJULG1ylEV9XFKnjd/Zx9G5TS5z9HwDo3wFl q7LF4fejXXWI58IjULfHA+5lXu7nHf+OELc+24k+vHyeloE5h0U+k7/2uXgmROOZApmA hNV845ax15CCb74jG/wUdKFYM9ezi+xJjs5Dv/gWHR4d916nEUSpdicbA/cVzYOMNYwu dCcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1770900521; x=1771505321; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=YhhgOb9LysbVG9bbVsQCWTAloOdIqGb1FGL7MbEAI0c=; b=nYBnQbXFtDPjnM3bKmKEyl77CP0H+gvxSrkiJSS7fvwBgUCyMmEXe0baK+Xt7KmDQ+ NhdlDSxoz8DiVsnjDV1Z+uTRAVRerVGgHgPUzSmojJP+5kKqo3IjUsVENh9xezbmRk48 khmIhJPR3oqA91nrozPGdH5ZBA2MfRd8UMzWXGKTwTkrkPNZ9w3drCU5S/c8pl28mulo o0sWCHtx0r9s5nSNSPkRlQ82p/SVtRKvrOavB0Hc9ScXpAZMrioid7Op926vfFB5Y6Rv 13T6l5lRWQkTyl4SUUAuwA1xFHhf1/BOu/ZshY1k+tx+4xgzy5+q4gg9z2OOacEyGJSM aiQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwKwapTVLbKRVOMstFah0afoMxmc5scK8hU+ePomeEg1qpHRgsG h1Zd/x4i+R8zNiv6qBAvR4OFtp/tpRBafIbOn8bmoHMtKKtBAuCSbYr3r+haSn2+beo= X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aK5Ug+TH76JDQ1B/YrCGN36O7yBGSu2G//hn/ub5SmudK3DZ6wFK3qoV2qYQI0 C8tZQBi/p3aRxh8RKxEjkaPfDB5X5sKJ3KI2LWwehHVfhT8guYwCboON464uz4C8DoU1JK50aKq 3WLBjRXEP2/8NrcvBRWJrnBuFKlY8Yzmfwqw1CIt4v+bMSLlGNyvmcljY7I2CanWVfC3Z5yn9G1 OcROw/FfqO1EvSVlVBf3DIe5VZw3v1ZQ7WWx8ovNh0WhaCP8nc1mDIdAeDdmr7kguW1lGEJf/B5 gaOtjpdP4Bq6IG9whyKJYLnU59qH/UHhxTdkVSo/mfDsEiYBZQlxjWDmreSP9SQeBz4+HEkb1h1 ZvCHflbSAjgA6Vls6VFFUmTF4Ss822eYFXyIx6EKrdD7TZztCagpZRBp1/p2A8uLfNkmgmSuULi baEVn8h+YwETu2HEtPHcO0LGetbHmuEL3FQ+Y6M1xtayHARxllM1Wf3TUfFesN+J3xKohO5F0gY D/EFLs+5A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:6612:b0:743:8af2:1af7 with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-7d4b2a7db1emr1727980a34.23.1770900521227; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 04:48:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.150] ([198.8.77.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 46e09a7af769-7d4a7530a8bsm3843898a34.4.2026.02.12.04.48.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Feb 2026 04:48:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 05:48:40 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: ublk invert part scan bit logic To: Ming Lei Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" References: <0535f4dd-ada3-414a-84c6-7abc232aa670@kernel.dk> Content-Language: en-US From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/12/26 5:42 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 04:05:27AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For ublk, there's this logic in in ublk_ctrl_start_dev(): >> >> /* Skip partition scan if disabled by user */ >> if (ub->dev_info.flags & UBLK_F_NO_AUTO_PART_SCAN) { >> clear_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &disk->state); >> } else { >> /* Schedule async partition scan for trusted daemons */ >> if (!ub->unprivileged_daemons) >> schedule_work(&ub->partition_scan_work); >> } >> >> where the >> >> clear_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &disk->state); >> >> seems reversed? Why is GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN being cleared if >> UBLK_F_NO_AUTO_PART_SCAN is set? Added in: >> >> 8443e2087e70 ("ublk: add UBLK_F_NO_AUTO_PART_SCAN feature flag") > > Yeah, the interface is designed in this way: partition scan is not > done during add disk, and allowed since then on. The selftest code > is written in same way too. > > If GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN isn't cleared, userspace can't probe partitions > any more. > > However, if you think the interface isn't good, we still can change it > before 7.0 release. What I mean is, if UBLK_F_NO_AUTO_PART_SCAN is set, should we not either leave the disk->state alone, or _set_ GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN? I might be confused here, but the current implementation doesn't make much sense to me! If it is correct, then a comment to that effect would be good imho. -- Jens Axboe