From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 7528E309F08; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 02:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789956465; cv=none; b=JYFBc/9xlzjIeZWWnnjR30ovrzouqQIiazoI5+Ma65Q86nMZTHJ73lCS/jGnLZDf5HHp7CFteBIaZAfHN910Xg9N1b00MJoYQFFrk7t8stsOhjWEGYJnlfu4j7qbsSuqtEam4o570m23liNSBaoMxTFUR9cLsk7PPg/5IuMydSk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789956465; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ju/cTloKSN64KyZCRJUcn1dqvuAsHGPLKIg3Vp9ppcE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=H1eq7+HjC0qcwQCX1Jxek02DJQiqywXEKqxayhQXdYwpfTJiDHSV2ROJYM2cL4SGD9lwiTlgREjtSNujbYZ6gKTeyCly1M89FvQKLma3Vg+/hzKwdKmvHvTUDHqtniIGp9aV4qbOGykr0Na+lwRQZoiV0eGEs5wpb6j2D/qD/7M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=IwDKTTQC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="IwDKTTQC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DD261F000FF; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 02:07:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789956462; bh=Yle/84uMloMl4i1MCYKaQMDXWcs+X0GhI+Tf9bq4uOc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=IwDKTTQCuxTr1EsNM8BoFbvxsvzzmTevaxa/stOLnovjSY5bHcgFyyeMMywAUlGzl Z3LONS2yItV24JXpq4iJJ+tPyLufKYVh0q/KPFzxxXwvKBGU+IHXuBUBJi4EO4/zHj wohVTZB2bLVD2jH70bOf3C74PrZLe8RXotzmcaqw+fiDhPJj0+oRslI3WysEWTjuKS 5gAa9XzNx1ToXXxoUYAjyQztRJrh+6cX1ScRgzXUtQjwEP2mrWMETpns5CI1q+7YH/ U/25QkwFH/+QRXG30eoBC+tFCQEuPlYR/v7ewhgdtmg9nIh1BnwKHTgrAQYCH7jUW7 1cbYKADzUQ7sw== Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 11:07:39 +0900 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: next-20260917 and next-20260918: merge of the block tree breaks all zoned devices To: Tao Cui , Mark Brown Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, cuitao@kylinos.cn References: <20260920125846.1806521-1-cui.tao@linux.dev> <20260920231226.771a0e21@canb.auug.org.au> <7141040b-5a15-471f-9bbf-9a18bed864e7@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US From: Damien Le Moal Organization: Western Digital Research In-Reply-To: <7141040b-5a15-471f-9bbf-9a18bed864e7@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > > 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? Doh! Yes, you are absolutely correct. I am going to do a manual merge to generate a proper conflict resolution. > > Thanks. > >> Thanks! >> > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research