[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b74cc3d8-bfde-8375-3b19-24ea13eb1196@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 15:43:46 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@...gle.com>,
Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...gle.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] block: Introduce provisioning primitives
On 4/18/23 15:12, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> /* Fail if we don't recognize the flags. */
> - if (mode & ~BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED)
> + if (mode != 0 && mode & ~BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
Is this change necessary? Doesn't (mode & ~BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED)
!= 0 imply that mode != 0?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists