On 7/20/22 23:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > As we start out with a default of 0, this needs a min_not_zero to > actually work. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > --- > block/blk-settings.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c > index 8bb9eef5310eb..9f6e271ca67f4 100644 > --- a/block/blk-settings.c > +++ b/block/blk-settings.c > @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ int blk_stack_limits(struct queue_limits *t, struct queue_limits *b, > t->max_dev_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_dev_sectors, b->max_dev_sectors); > t->max_write_zeroes_sectors = min(t->max_write_zeroes_sectors, > b->max_write_zeroes_sectors); > - t->max_zone_append_sectors = min(t->max_zone_append_sectors, > + t->max_zone_append_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_zone_append_sectors, > b->max_zone_append_sectors); Hmmm... Given that max_zone_append_sectors should never be zero for any zoned block device, that is OK. However, DM targets combining zoned and non-zoned devices to create a non zoned logical drive, e.g. dm-zoned with a regular ssd for metadata, should not have a non-zero max_zone_append_sectors. So I am not confident this change leads to correct limits in all cases. > t->bounce = max(t->bounce, b->bounce); > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
