On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Yijing Wang wrote: > set_capacity() has been called in bcache_device_init(), > remove the redundant one. > > Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c > index 849ad44..b638a16 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c > +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c > @@ -1126,9 +1126,6 @@ static int cached_dev_init(struct cached_dev *dc, unsigned block_size) > if (ret) > return ret; > > - set_capacity(dc->disk.disk, > - dc->bdev->bd_part->nr_sects - dc->sb.data_offset); > - It probably is a duplicate set_capacity, but has anyone tested bringing on a writeback volume, and late-attaching the cache volume with this patch applied? Otherwise stated, is it possible to get the backing device attached without setting the capacity? -Eric > dc->disk.disk->queue->backing_dev_info.ra_pages = > max(dc->disk.disk->queue->backing_dev_info.ra_pages, > q->backing_dev_info.ra_pages); > -- > 2.5.0 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
