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 C581126AF6; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:21:01 +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=1718090462; cv=none; b=ukUSN8oeQnlnLe1dKed7wigeu/Xu3jxPkMSZMe+uDXsVVCm+D+jyqLdFJQ8ivyBOsHQm+JTOf+ci7ODr7I/yFTpMPKEGoR38J5BFVVEzj9Oc+FFThCHGgXlDCIwo5jk8nbS7nXGPFjZUkWwEtPftJbgSj9EEx68NbsnSi1TAjEs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718090462; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SxGiXC2eXjeuicvqjgmxBbbuRkQDAALVXqGltltCvpM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=kLloKrgzwvysRNcCtJnjxEzESwXzbXDL1lnMiNbIJ0xTEJN1RkUG/ZRKuwmv8E2unW1AGERUKcOS/5bZduh/n4JAnjqCrTTlrtbgFxYRaXZp+RM7FSLcThjjb5ADIlsj7/FGb42AK8TpKjDhT1q0ga9ISxAH1Jua3yVg6ifaZS0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=J9t/JghW; 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="J9t/JghW" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B857C2BD10; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:20:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1718090461; bh=SxGiXC2eXjeuicvqjgmxBbbuRkQDAALVXqGltltCvpM=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=J9t/JghW0gR/ETwdzjpl7VD7KnwAlMW8rRhwZr9kxWhQ6tl8Phg9WjO76NiKxxgu8 fLxeqF9M5t6BVVC5kK/sKL3zR1K2qLPoyVha6i0EJluUzp1kNJ5g2TNKh8g+EJPN33 hrljcXVnUuN8Lr5KlIujiAJZzEJDuCsFcPLl3jPutPmhKf9R0GeNiPNem29bg2OBO7 a1cFWzw0qNt9DSnc6yLqLEresNea8LBs8q7/++QEaUosyu+AjkSi/+C9VElPN9n7PP XlPsIxsXYvBqYod+WVUBRRvW1FiyVSTv+Mlz8E7DodnwczmTJdbU3tnt32fP5VZhAs 3tDYxoJTsEL7w== Message-ID: <6bf90562-0ff9-46b6-8a58-7381332e3beb@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:20:54 +0900 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/26] sd: move zone limits setup out of sd_read_block_characteristics To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Geert Uytterhoeven , Richard Weinberger , Philipp Reisner , Lars Ellenberg , Christoph B??hmwalder , Josef Bacik , Ming Lei , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Roger Pau Monn?? , Alasdair Kergon , Mike Snitzer , Mikulas Patocka , Song Liu , Yu Kuai , Vineeth Vijayan , "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, nbd@other.debian.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <20240611051929.513387-1-hch@lst.de> <20240611051929.513387-3-hch@lst.de> <40ca8052-6ac1-4c1b-8c39-b0a7948839f8@kernel.org> <20240611055239.GA3141@lst.de> Content-Language: en-US From: Damien Le Moal Organization: Western Digital Research In-Reply-To: <20240611055239.GA3141@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/11/24 2:52 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 02:51:24PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>> - if (lim->zoned) >>> + if (sdkp->device->type == TYPE_ZBC) >> >> Nit: use sd_is_zoned() here ? > > Yes. > >>> - if (!sd_is_zoned(sdkp)) >>> + if (!sd_is_zoned(sdkp)) { >>> + lim->zoned = false; >> >> Maybe we should clear the other zone related limits here ? If the drive is >> reformatted/converted from SMR to CMR (FORMAT WITH PRESET), the other zone >> limits may be set already, no ? > > blk_validate_zoned_limits already takes care of that. I do not think it does: static int blk_validate_zoned_limits(struct queue_limits *lim) { if (!lim->zoned) { if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lim->max_open_zones) || WARN_ON_ONCE(lim->max_active_zones) || WARN_ON_ONCE(lim->zone_write_granularity) || WARN_ON_ONCE(lim->max_zone_append_sectors)) return -EINVAL; return 0; } ... So setting lim->zoned to false without clearing the other limits potentially will trigger warnings... -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research