On 6/14/22 09:43, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 6/14/22 02:09, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
blk_rq_get_max_sectors always uses q->limits.chunk_sectors as the
chunk_sectors argument, and already checks for max_sectors through the
call to blk_queue_get_max_sectors. That means much of
blk_max_size_offset is not needed and open coding it simplifies the code.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
---
block/blk-merge.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
index db2e03c8af7f4..df003ecfbd474 100644
--- a/block/blk-merge.c
+++ b/block/blk-merge.c
@@ -566,17 +566,18 @@ static inline unsigned int
blk_rq_get_max_sectors(struct request *rq,
sector_t offset)
{
struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
+ unsigned int max_sectors;
if (blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq))
return q->limits.max_hw_sectors;
+ max_sectors = blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq));
if (!q->limits.chunk_sectors ||
req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_DISCARD ||
req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE)
- return blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq));
-
- return min(blk_max_size_offset(q, offset, 0),
- blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq)));
+ return max_sectors;
+ return min(max_sectors,
+ blk_chunk_sectors_left(offset, q->limits.chunk_sectors));
}
blk_set_default_limits() initializes chunk_sectors to zero and
blk_chunk_sectors_left() triggers a division by zero if a zero is passed
as the second argument. What am I missing?
Answering my own question: I overlooked one of the return statements.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
