Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4

Sedat Dilek
2015-02-05T19:46:48Z

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Sedat" == Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Sedat> No, but I am here on a so-called WUBI installation which
> Sedat> triggered some bugs being an exotic installation. My
> Sedat> Ubuntu/precise is a 18GiB image laying on my Win7 partition
> Sedat> (/dev/sda2).
>
> I've been mulling over this for a while and can't come up with a good
> approach. So let's just nuke these warnings.
>
> --
> Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
>
>
> block: Quiesce zeroout wrapper
>
> blkdev_issue_zeroout() printed a warning if a device failed a discard or
> write same request despite advertising support for these. That's fine
> for SCSI since we'll disable these commands if we get an error back from
> the disk saying that they are not supported. And consequently the
> warning only gets printed once.
>
> There are other types of block devices that support discard, however,
> and these may return -EOPNOTSUPP for each command but leave discard
> enabled in the queue limits. This will cause a warning message for every
> blkdev_issue_zeroout() invocation.
>
> Remove the offending warning messages.
>
> Reported-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> ---
> block/blk-lib.c | 26 +++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
> index 715e948f58a4..7688ee3f5d72 100644
> --- a/block/blk-lib.c
> +++ b/block/blk-lib.c
> @@ -286,7 +286,6 @@ static int __blkdev_issue_zeroout(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> * @discard: whether to discard the block range
> *
> * Description:
> -
> * Zero-fill a block range. If the discard flag is set and the block
> * device guarantees that subsequent READ operations to the block range
> * in question will return zeroes, the blocks will be discarded. Should
> @@ -303,26 +302,15 @@ int blkdev_issue_zeroout(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask, bool discard)
> {
> struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
> - unsigned char bdn[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
> -
> - if (discard && blk_queue_discard(q) && q->limits.discard_zeroes_data) {
>
> - if (!blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, sector, nr_sects, gfp_mask, 0))
> - return 0;
> -
> - bdevname(bdev, bdn);
> - pr_warn("%s: DISCARD failed. Manually zeroing.\n", bdn);
> - }
> + if (discard && blk_queue_discard(q) && q->limits.discard_zeroes_data &&
> + blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, sector, nr_sects, gfp_mask, 0) == 0)
> + return 0;
>
> - if (bdev_write_same(bdev)) {
> -
> - if (!blkdev_issue_write_same(bdev, sector, nr_sects, gfp_mask,
> - ZERO_PAGE(0)))
> - return 0;
> -
> - bdevname(bdev, bdn);
> - pr_warn("%s: WRITE SAME failed. Manually zeroing.\n", bdn);
> - }
> + if (bdev_write_same(bdev) &&
> + blkdev_issue_write_same(bdev, sector, nr_sects, gfp_mask,
> + ZERO_PAGE(0)) == 0)
> + return 0;
>
> return __blkdev_issue_zeroout(bdev, sector, nr_sects, gfp_mask);
> }

Martin, will you send a separate patch for that?

Thanks.

- Sedat -