[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f2cafc4-7b18-7bce-94cc-b58a1707f630@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 09:29:50 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Zheng Qixing <zhengqixing@...weicloud.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
song@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
dave.jiang@...el.com, dlemoal@...nel.org, kch@...dia.com,
yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev, hare@...e.de, zhengqixing@...wei.com,
colyli@...nel.org, geliang@...nel.org, xni@...hat.com
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 12/12] badblocks: use sector_t instead of int to avoid
truncation of badblocks length
Hi,
在 2025/02/27 23:27, Ira Weiny 写道:
> __add_badblock_range() in drivers/nvdimm/badrange.c limits the number of
> badblocks which can be set in each call to badblocks_set().
>
> After this change can that algorithm be eliminated? I'm not familiar with
> the badblocks code to know for certain.
This is another story, badblocks records are at most 512, and each
record is at most 512 sectors, so pass in INT_MAX will fail 100%.
Thanks,
Kuai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists