[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5512a55d-8852-db6d-6a54-9b8bb3cf2e96@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 15:13:31 +0200
From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
<Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>, <snitzer@...nel.org>,
<axboe@...nel.dk>, <agk@...hat.com>, <hch@....de>
CC: <dm-devel@...hat.com>, <matias.bjorling@....com>,
<gost.dev@...sung.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<pankydev8@...il.com>, <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, <hare@...e.de>,
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
<bvanassche@....org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/13] block: allow blk-zoned devices to have
non-power-of-2 zone size
>> static inline bool disk_zone_is_seq(struct gendisk *disk, sector_t sector)
>> {
>> if (!blk_queue_is_zoned(disk->queue))
>> @@ -753,6 +777,12 @@ static inline unsigned int disk_zone_no(struct gendisk *disk, sector_t sector)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +
>> +static inline bool bdev_is_zone_start(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sec)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>
> Is this one really necessary ? Any caller of this would also depend on
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED and not compiled if not enabled. So there should be no
> callers of this for the !CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED case.
>
We are using it in dm-table.c in device_area_is_invalid() function. So
it can be called without being compiled with CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED like
bdev_is_zoned() in dm-table.c.
>> +
>> static inline unsigned int bdev_max_open_zones(struct block_device *bdev)
>> {
>> return 0;
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists