[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZJxj6odz49iB5Mmm@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 17:46:34 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Yangtao Li <frank.li@...o.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, song@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@...nel.org, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
huyue2@...lpad.com, jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com, hch@...radead.org,
djwong@...nel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] block: add queue_logical_block_mask() and
bdev_logical_block_mask()
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:34:54PM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote:
> Introduce queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask()
> to simplify code, which replace (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1)
> and (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1).
The thing is that I know what queue_logical_block_size - 1 does.
That's the low bits. _Which_ bits are queue_logical_block_mask?
The high bits or the low bits? And before you say "It's obviously",
we have both ways round in the kernel today.
I am not in favour of this change. I might be in favour of bool
queue_logical_block_aligned(q, x), but even then it doesn't seem worth
the bits.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists