This is okay with me. By the way, why don't you like (sector_t)dev->sec_size * dev->sec_per_lun * rrpc->nr_luns, the change seems smaller? 2016-03-31 18:07 GMT+08:00 Matias Bjørling <mb@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 03/31/2016 11:51 AM, Wenwei Tao wrote: >> >> This could be work, but it needs more steps when rrpc_area_init fails. >> If rrpc_area_init fail we may come to rrpc_free and call >> rrpc_area_free, we find and put the area by the rrpc->soffset value, >> this value is zero when we fail to get an area, we may put an exist >> area that really start from zero by mistake. If we move rrpc_area_init >> call under the rrpc_luns_init call instead, we need a way to avoid it. > > > Fair enough. How about this: > > diff --git i/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c w/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c > index 3ab6495..05a0698 100644 > --- i/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c > +++ w/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c > @@ -1207,10 +1207,6 @@ static int rrpc_luns_init(struct rrpc *rrpc, int > lun_begin, int lun_end) > > INIT_WORK(&rlun->ws_gc, rrpc_lun_gc); > spin_lock_init(&rlun->lock); > - > - rrpc->total_blocks += dev->blks_per_lun; > - rrpc->nr_sects += dev->sec_per_lun; > - > } > > return 0; > @@ -1388,6 +1384,8 @@ static void *rrpc_init(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct > gendisk *tdisk, > INIT_WORK(&rrpc->ws_requeue, rrpc_requeue); > > rrpc->nr_luns = lun_end - lun_begin + 1; > + rrpc->total_blocks = dev->blks_per_lun * rrpc->nr_luns; > + rrpc->nr_sects = dev->sec_per_lun * rrpc->nr_luns; > > /* simple round-robin strategy */ > atomic_set(&rrpc->next_lun, -1); > > That nr_sects is initialized and we can use it in rrpc_area_init without > moving the initialization order? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
