Re: [RFC v2 09/11] block/bdev: lift block size restrictions and use common definition

[Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:14 PM John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2024 09:19, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 4:58 PM John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14/12/2024 03:10, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >>> index 167d82b46781..b57dc4bff81b 100644
> >>> --- a/block/bdev.c
> >>> +++ b/block/bdev.c
> >>> @@ -157,8 +157,7 @@ int set_blocksize(struct file *file, int size)
> >>>        struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> >>>        struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(inode);
> >>>
> >>> -     /* Size must be a power of two, and between 512 and PAGE_SIZE */
> >>> -     if (size > PAGE_SIZE || size < 512 || !is_power_of_2(size))
> >>> +     if (blk_validate_block_size(size))
> >>>                return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> I suppose that this can be sent as a separate patch to be merged now.
> >
> > There have been some bugs found in case that PAGE_SIZE == 64K, and I
> > think it is bad to use PAGE_SIZE for validating many hw/queue limits, we might
> > have to fix them first.
>
> I am just suggesting to remove duplicated code, as these checks are same
> as blk_validate_block_size()

My fault, misunderstood your point as pushing this single patch only.

>
> >
> > Such as:
>
> Aren't the below list just enforcing block layer requirements? And so
> only block drivers need fixing for PAGE_SIZE > 4K (or cannot be used for
> PAGE_SIZE > 4K), right?

It is block layer which should be fixed to support  PAGE_SIZE > 4K.

Thanks,