[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mb61p1q28y88y.fsf@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:31:09 +0000
From: Puranjay Mohan <pjy@...zon.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "Sagi
Grimberg" <sagi@...mberg.me>, <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <puranjay@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: check if the namespace supports metadata in
nvme_map_user_request()
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:23:27PM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>> @@ -119,9 +120,13 @@ static int nvme_map_user_request(struct request *req, u64 ubuffer,
>> struct request_queue *q = req->q;
>> struct nvme_ns *ns = q->queuedata;
>> struct block_device *bdev = ns ? ns->disk->part0 : NULL;
>> + bool has_metadata = bdev && meta_buffer && meta_len;
>
> If this is an admin command, then bdev is NULL, so "has_metadata" is
> false.
>
>> struct bio *bio = NULL;
>> int ret;
>>
>> + if (has_metadata && !blk_get_integrity(bdev->bd_disk))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>
> Since has_metadata is false, we continue on to process this admin
> command, but ignore the user's metadata settings. Do we want to return
> error there too?
As an admin command with metadata is an invalid configuration, we can
ignore the metada and go ahead with the admin command or I can add the
following after the above check:
if (!bdev && (meta_buffer || meta_len))
return -EINVAL;
I don't know what is the best approach here.
Thanks,
Puranjay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists