Keith Busch <kbusch@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 03:40:04PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> +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);
>> + }
>
> You've set block_size to the literal 4096, then validate its value
> immediately after? Am I missing some way this could ever be invalid?
Good catch. It is because I have a patch in the outbound queue that allows setting
the block size via a module parameter. The module parameter patch is not
upstream yet. Once I have that up, I will send the patch with the block
size config.
Do you think it is OK to have this redundancy? It would only be for a
few cycles.
Best regards,
Andreas
