Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] block: Imporve checks on zone resource limits

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



improve is misspelled in the subject.

> @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ static int blk_validate_zoned_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED)))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	if (lim->max_active_zones &&
> +	    WARN_ON_ONCE(lim->max_open_zones > lim->max_active_zones))
> +		lim->max_open_zones = lim->max_active_zones;

Given how active zones are defined this is an error condition, and
should return -EINVAL.

> diff --git a/block/blk-zoned.c b/block/blk-zoned.c
> index 52abebf56027..2af4d5ca81d2 100644
> --- a/block/blk-zoned.c
> +++ b/block/blk-zoned.c
> @@ -1660,6 +1660,11 @@ static int disk_update_zone_resources(struct gendisk *disk,
>  	lim = queue_limits_start_update(q);
>  
>  	nr_seq_zones = disk->nr_zones - nr_conv_zones;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lim.max_active_zones > nr_seq_zones))
> +		lim.max_active_zones = 0;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lim.max_open_zones > nr_seq_zones))
> +		lim.max_open_zones = 0;

Why would you warn about this?  Offering an open/active limit larger
than the number of sequential zones is a pretty natural condition
for certain corner cases (e.g. create only a tiny namespace on a ZNS
SSD).  This could also use a code comment explaining why the limit
is adjusted.





[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux