[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xusoetn.fsf@metaspace.dk>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:36:20 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Damien
Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, Andreas
Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho
<wedsonaf@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo
<gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron
<bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno
Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>, Luis Chamberlain
<mcgrof@...nel.org>, Yexuan Yang <1182282462@...t.edu.cn>, Sergio
González Collado <sergio.collado@...il.com>, Joel
Granados
<j.granados@...sung.com>, "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)"
<kernel@...kajraghav.com>, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>, Niklas
Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>, Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Johannes Thumshirn
<Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>, Matias Bjørling
<m@...rling.me>, open list
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org"
<rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, "lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "gost.dev@...sung.com"
<gost.dev@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rust: block: add rnull, Rust null_blk
implementation
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 03:40:04PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> +impl kernel::Module for NullBlkModule {
>> + fn init(_module: &'static ThisModule) -> Result<Self> {
>> + pr_info!("Rust null_blk loaded\n");
>> + let tagset = Arc::pin_init(TagSet::try_new(1, 256, 1), flags::GFP_KERNEL)?;
>> +
>> + let disk = {
>> + let block_size: u16 = 4096;
>> + if block_size % 512 != 0 || !(512..=4096).contains(&block_size) {
>> + return Err(kernel::error::code::EINVAL);
>> + }
>
> You've set block_size to the literal 4096, then validate its value
> immediately after? Am I missing some way this could ever be invalid?
Good catch. It is because I have a patch in the outbound queue that allows setting
the block size via a module parameter. The module parameter patch is not
upstream yet. Once I have that up, I will send the patch with the block
size config.
Do you think it is OK to have this redundancy? It would only be for a
few cycles.
Best regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists