Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +impl kernel::Module for NullBlkModule {
>> + fn init(_module: &'static ThisModule) -> Result<Self> {
>> + pr_info!("Rust null_blk loaded\n");
>> + let tagset = Arc::pin_init(TagSet::try_new(1, 256, 1), flags::GFP_KERNEL)?;
>> +
>> + let disk = {
>> + let block_size: u16 = 4096;
>> + if block_size % 512 != 0 || !(512..=4096).contains(&block_size) {
>> + return Err(kernel::error::code::EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>> + let mut disk = gen_disk::GenDisk::try_new(tagset)?;
>> + disk.set_name(format_args!("rnullb{}", 0))?;
>> + disk.set_capacity_sectors(4096 << 11);
>> + disk.set_queue_logical_block_size(block_size.into());
>> + disk.set_queue_physical_block_size(block_size.into());
>> + disk.set_rotational(false);
>> + disk.add()
>> + }?;
>
> Personally, I would prefer to put the `?` into the line above.
I have no strong opinion here.
>
>> +
>> + let disk = Box::pin_init(new_mutex!(disk, "nullb:disk"), flags::GFP_KERNEL)?;
>> +
>> + Ok(Self { _disk: disk })
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct NullBlkDevice;
>> +
>> +#[vtable]
>> +impl Operations for NullBlkDevice {
>> + #[inline(always)]
>> + fn queue_rq(rq: ARef<mq::Request<Self>>, _is_last: bool) -> Result {
>> + mq::Request::end_ok(rq)
>> + .map_err(|_e| kernel::error::code::EIO)
>> + .expect("Fatal error - expected to be able to end request");
>
> I expected something more along the lines of: "expected to be able to
> end request, since `NullBlkDevice` never takes refcounts on Requests and
> as such the ARef must be unique, but `end_ok` only fails if that is not
> the case". But maybe that would fit better in a comment, what do you
> think?
I can add a comment 👍
BR Andreas
