From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, song@kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] block: Support atomic writes limits for stacked devices
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 14:03:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <28fb29cc-1c1b-4b26-a859-c29b6cfa337e@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241030135006.GC27762@lst.de>
On 30/10/2024 13:50, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>> +static void blk_stack_atomic_writes_limits(struct queue_limits *t, struct queue_limits *b)
> Avoid the overly long line here.
sure
>
>> + if (t->atomic_write_hw_max) {
> Maybe split this branch and the code for when it is not set into
> separate helpers to keep the function to a size where it can be
> easily understood?
I was trying to reduce indentation, but it does read a bit messy now, so
I can try break into a smaller function.
>
>> + /* Check first bottom device limits */
>> + if (!b->atomic_write_hw_boundary)
>> + goto check_unit;
>> + /*
>> + * Ensure atomic write boundary is aligned with chunk sectors. Stacked
>> + * devices store chunk sectors in t->io_min.
>> + */
>> + if (b->atomic_write_hw_boundary > t->io_min &&
>> + b->atomic_write_hw_boundary % t->io_min)
>> + goto unsupported;
>> + else if (t->io_min > b->atomic_write_hw_boundary &&
> No need for the else here.
>
>> + t->io_min % b->atomic_write_hw_boundary)
>> + goto unsupported;
>> +
>> + t->atomic_write_hw_boundary = b->atomic_write_hw_boundary;
>> +
>> +check_unit:
> Maybe instead of the check_unit goto just move the checks between the
> goto above and this into a branch?
I'm not sure, but I can try to avoid using the "goto check_unit" just to
skip code.
>
> Otherwise this looks conceptually fine to me.
ok, thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-30 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-30 9:49 [PATCH v2 0/5] RAID 0/1/10 atomic write support John Garry
2024-10-30 9:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] block: Add extra checks in blk_validate_atomic_write_limits() John Garry
2024-10-30 13:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-10-30 9:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] block: Support atomic writes limits for stacked devices John Garry
2024-10-30 13:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-10-30 14:03 ` John Garry [this message]
2024-10-30 9:49 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] md/raid0: Atomic write support John Garry
2024-10-30 9:49 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] md/raid1: " John Garry
2024-10-31 1:47 ` kernel test robot
2024-10-31 1:57 ` Yu Kuai
2024-10-31 11:17 ` John Garry
2024-10-31 4:43 ` kernel test robot
2024-10-30 9:49 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] md/raid10: " John Garry
2024-10-31 4:53 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=28fb29cc-1c1b-4b26-a859-c29b6cfa337e@oracle.com \
--to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox