On 9/21/26 09:49, Tao Cui wrote:
> Hi Mark, Damien,
> 
> 在 2026/9/21 06:37, Damien Le Moal 写道:
>> On 9/21/26 00:18, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> I did say when I did that merge that I had no confidence in it but
>>> nobody responded.  Can you please send me a commit on top of current
>>> -next which fixes up the resolution appropriately?  I can drop extra
>>> fixups in relatively easily, it's probably safer to take something that
>>> you have tested.
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> My apologies for not replying, but I was traveling. I had looked at your
>> resolution but only quickly and I did not notice the incorrect comparison
>> causing the issue.
>>
>> I am attaching a diff that cleans up the conflict resolution.
>>
> 
> I tested Damien's patch on top of next-20260918.
> 
> It restores the zoned null_blk here: nullb0 is created again, reports
> host-managed, and the queue chunk size is back to 131072 sectors
> (CONFIG_BLK_DEV_NULL_BLK=y, "null_blk.zoned=1 null_blk.gb=1
> null_blk.zone_size=64" on the kernel command line).  So this looks
> good to me.
> 
> Tested-by: Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
> 
> One question for Damien while looking through the merged code: both
> parents had the power-of-two check for zone_sectors, but that check
> also disappears in the merged result.  Was that removal intentional,
> or should it be restored as well?

Mark, Attaching a v2 diff for corrected the conflict resolution. This is on top
of the current linux-next.

Thanks.


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research