linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] ublk: enable zoned storage support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:58:22 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@...aspace.dk>
Cc:     Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>,
        Matias Bjørling <Matias.Bjorling@....com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "gost.dev@...sung.com" <gost.dev@...sung.com>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
        Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@....com>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>,
        Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] ublk: enable zoned storage support

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:11:56PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
> 
> Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 09:25:10AM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> >> From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>
> >
> > Hello Andreas!
> >
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>  	/* for READ request, writing data in iod->addr to rq buffers */
> >> @@ -1120,6 +1404,11 @@ static void ublk_commit_completion(struct ublk_device *ub,
> >>  	/* find the io request and complete */
> >>  	req = blk_mq_tag_to_rq(ub->tag_set.tags[qid], tag);
> >>  
> >> +	if (io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_ZONE_APPEND) {
> >
> > Do we really need to introduce a completely new flag just for this?
> >
> > if (req_op(req) == REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND)
> >
> > should work just as well, no?
> 
> Makes sense, thanks.

The above one can be replaced with req_op().

But extra cost is added when retrieving request for the check in
__ublk_ch_uring_cmd().


Thanks,
Ming