On Tue, Jan 05 2010 at 9:57pm -0500, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05 2010 at 9:23pm -0500, > Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>>> "Alasdair" == Alasdair G Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Alasdair> extern int blk_stack_limits(struct queue_limits *t, struct > > Alasdair> queue_limits *b, > > Alasdair> sector_t offset); > > > > Alasdair> This function is asking for the offset to be supplied as > > Alasdair> sector_t i.e. in units of sectors, but this patch uses bytes. > > Alasdair> Please either change that to sectors as per the prototype, or > > Alasdair> if it really does want bytes, fix the prototype to make that > > Alasdair> clear. > > > > It is sector_t because we don't have an existing type that fits the bill > > (i.e. >= sector_t and dependent on whether LBD is on or not). We're > > trying to move away from counting in sectors because the notion is > > confusing in the light of the logical vs. physical block size, device > > alignment reporting, etc. > > > > So maybe something like this? > > > > > > block: Introduce blk_off_t > > > > There are several places we want to communicate alignment and offsets in > > bytes to avoid confusion with regards to underlying physical and logical > > block sizes. Introduce blk_off_t for block device byte offsets. > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> > ... > > diff --git a/include/linux/types.h b/include/linux/types.h > > index c42724f..729f87a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/types.h > > +++ b/include/linux/types.h > > @@ -134,9 +134,11 @@ typedef __s64 int64_t; > > #ifdef CONFIG_LBDAF > > typedef u64 sector_t; > > typedef u64 blkcnt_t; > > +typedef u64 blk_off_t; > > #else > > typedef unsigned long sector_t; > > typedef unsigned long blkcnt_t; > > +typedef unsigned long blk_off_t; > > #endif > > > > /* > > After looking closer there seems to be various type inconsistencies in > the alignment_offset and discard_alignment related routines (returning > 'int' in places, etc). > > The following patch is what I found; I have no problem with switching > from 'unsigned long' to blk_off_t for LBD though. > > Martin, would like to carry forward with this? Have I gone overboard > with this patch? I missed fixing disk_stack_limits()'s 'offset' though... Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
