On 12/9/24 16:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 07:57:58AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> +int blkdev_issue_zone_zeroout(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, >> + sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > Nit: Would blk_zone_issue_zeroout be a better name? Yes. > Also I think this needs to be re-ordered before the previous patch to > preserve bisectability. The problem with doing that is that there is absolutely nothing to patch/fix before the previous patch, since the "recovery/report zones" was done automatically. So if anything, maybe I should just squash this patch together with the previous one to be consistent against bisect ? That does make sense since this patch is needed *because* of the previous patch change. >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(blkdev_issue_zone_zeroout); > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is used for all other zoned code, I'd do the same > here for consitency. Indeed. Will do. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
