On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:40:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 03/07/2012 16:39, Vivek Goyal ha scritto:
> >> > +static inline int bdev_discard_alignment(struct block_device *bdev)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (bdev != bdev->bd_contains)
> >> > + return bdev->bd_part->discard_alignment;
> >> > +
> >> > + return q->limits.discard_alignment;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > static inline unsigned int queue_discard_zeroes_data(struct request_queue *q)
> >> > {
> >> > if (q->limits.max_discard_sectors && q->limits.discard_zeroes_data == 1)
> >> > diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
> >> > index b2bde5c..77d8869 100644
> >> > --- a/block/blk-lib.c
> >> > +++ b/block/blk-lib.c
> >> > @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> >> > /* Zero-sector (unknown) and one-sector granularities are the same. */
> >> > granularity = max(q->limits.discard_granularity >> 9, 1U);
> >> > mask = granularity - 1;
> >> > - alignment = (q->limits.discard_alignment >> 9) & mask;
> >> > + alignment = bdev_discard_alignment(bdev) >> 9;
> > Why are you removing AND with mask operation? I don't see any AND
> > operation being done in bdev_discard_alignment().
>
> For partitions it is done by queue_limits_discard_alignment. For disks,
> it shouldn't be necessary at all but I can leave it.
Ok. I am fine with both with and without mask.
Thanks
Vivek
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
