Re: [PATCH 3/5] block: remove support for the host aware zone model

Ed Tsai (蔡宗軒)
2023-12-18T08:21:58Z

On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 15:53 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2023/12/18 15:15, Ed Tsai (蔡宗軒) wrote:
> > Hi Christoph,
> >
> > some minor suggestions:
> >
> > On Sun, 2023-12-17 at 17:53 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-table.c b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> >> index 198d38b53322c1..260b5b8f2b0d7e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> >> @@ -1579,21 +1579,18 @@ bool dm_table_has_no_data_devices(struct
> >> dm_table *t)
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static int device_not_zoned_model(struct dm_target *ti, struct
> >> dm_dev *dev,
> >> - sector_t start, sector_t len, void
> >> *data)
> >> +static int device_not_zoned(struct dm_target *ti, struct dm_dev
> >> *dev,
> >> + sector_t start, sector_t len, void *data)
> >> {
> >> -struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(dev->bdev);
> >> -enum blk_zoned_model *zoned_model = data;
> >> +bool *zoned = data;
> >>
> >> -return blk_queue_zoned_model(q) != *zoned_model;
> >> +return bdev_is_zoned(dev->bdev) != *zoned;
> >> }
> >>
> >> static int device_is_zoned_model(struct dm_target *ti, struct
> dm_dev
> >> *dev,
> >> sector_t start, sector_t len, void
> >> *data)
> >
> > Seems like the word "model" should also be remove here.
> >
> >> {
> >> -struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(dev->bdev);
> >> -
> >> -return blk_queue_zoned_model(q) != BLK_ZONED_NONE;
> >> +return bdev_is_zoned(dev->bdev);
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> @@ -1603,8 +1600,7 @@ static int device_is_zoned_model(struct
> >> dm_target *ti, struct dm_dev *dev,
> >> * has the DM_TARGET_MIXED_ZONED_MODEL feature set, the devices
> can
> >> have any
> >> * zoned model with all zoned devices having the same zone size.
> >> */
> >> -static bool dm_table_supports_zoned_model(struct dm_table *t,
> >> - enum blk_zoned_model
> >> zoned_model)
> >> +static bool dm_table_supports_zoned(struct dm_table *t, bool
> zoned)
> >> {
> >> for (unsigned int i = 0; i < t->num_targets; i++) {
> >> struct dm_target *ti = dm_table_get_target(t, i);
> >> @@ -1623,11 +1619,11 @@ static bool
> >> dm_table_supports_zoned_model(struct dm_table *t,
> >>
> >> if (dm_target_supports_zoned_hm(ti->type)) {
> >> if (!ti->type->iterate_devices ||
> >> - ti->type->iterate_devices(ti,
> >> device_not_zoned_model,
> >> - &zoned_model))
> >> + ti->type->iterate_devices(ti,
> >> device_not_zoned,
> >> + &zoned))
> >> return false;
> >> } else if (!dm_target_supports_mixed_zoned_model(ti-
> >>> type)) {
> >> -if (zoned_model == BLK_ZONED_HM)
> >> +if (zoned)
> >> return false;
> >> }
> >> }
> >
> > The parameter "bool zoned" is redundant. It should be removed from
> the
> > above 3 functions

The two func, is zoned and not zoned, are essentially the same. They
can be simplified into one function.

> >
> > Additionally, because we no longer need to distinguish the zoned
> model
> > here, DM_TARGET_MIXED_ZONED_MODEL is meaningless. We can also clean
> up
> > its related code.
>
> Nope. The mixed thing is for mixing up non-zoned with zoned models.
> For the entire DM code, HM and HA are both treated as HM-like zoned.
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research

Thank you. I have some misunderstanding. Please disregard it.