Re: [PATCH v7 04/22] Change direct_access calling convention

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>]

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:30:28PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > @@ -379,7 +379,9 @@ static int brd_direct_access(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> >  	*kaddr = page_address(page);
> >  	*pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> >  
> > -	return 0;
> > +	/* Could optimistically check to see if the next page in the
> > +	 * file is mapped to the next page of physical RAM */
> > +	return PAGE_SIZE;
>   This should be min_t(long, PAGE_SIZE, size), shouldn't it?

Yes, it should.  In practice, I don't think anyone's calling it with
size < PAGE_SIZE, but we might as well future-proof it.

> > @@ -866,25 +866,26 @@ fail:
> >  	bio_io_error(bio);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int
> > +static long
> >  dcssblk_direct_access (struct block_device *bdev, sector_t secnum,
> > -			void **kaddr, unsigned long *pfn)
> > +			void **kaddr, unsigned long *pfn, long size)
> >  {
> >  	struct dcssblk_dev_info *dev_info;
> > -	unsigned long pgoff;
> > +	unsigned long offset, dev_sz;

> > -	return 0;
> > +	return min_t(unsigned long, size, dev_sz - offset);
>                      ^^^ Why unsigned? Everything seems to be long...

offset is unsigned long ... but might as well do the comparison in signed
as unsigned.  'size' shouldn't be passed in as < 0 anyway.