On 9/27/22 5:07 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 9/28/22 01:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/27/22 10:51 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:04:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> Ah yes, good point. We used to have this notion of 'fs' request, don't
>>>> think we do anymore. Because it really should just be:
>>>
>>> A fs request is a !passthrough request.
>>
>> Right, that's the condition I made below too.
>>
>>>> if (zoned && (op & REQ_OP_WRITE) && fs_request)
>>>> return NULL;
>>>>
>>>> for that condition imho. I guess we could make it:
>>>>
>>>> if (zoned && (op & REQ_OP_WRITE) && !(op & REQ_OP_DRV_OUT))
>>>> return NULL;
>>>
>>> Well, the only opcodes we do zone locking for is REQ_OP_WRITE and
>>> REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES. So this should be:
>>>
>>> if (zoned && (op == REQ_OP_WRITE || op == REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES))
>>> return NULL;
>>
>> I'd rather just make it explicit and use that. Pankaj, do you want
>> to spin a v2 with that?
>
> It would be nice to reuse the bio equivalent of
> blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock().
>
> The test would be:
>
> if (bio_needs_zone_write_locking())
> return NULL;
>
> With something like:
>
> static inline bool bio_needs_zone_write_locking()
> {
> if (!bdev_is_zoned(bio->bi_bdev))
> return false;
>
> switch (bio_op(bio)) {
> case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
>
> case REQ_OP_WRITE:
>
> return true;
> default:
>
> return false;
>
> }
> }
I'd be fine with that (using a shared helper), but let's please just
make it:
static inline bool op_is_zoned_write(bdev, op)
{
if (!bdev_is_zoned(bio->bi_bdev))
return false;
return op == REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES || op == REQ_OP_WRITE;
}
and avoid a switch for this basic case and name it a bit more logically
too. Not married to the above name, but the helper should not imply
anything about zone locking. That's for the caller.
--
Jens Axboe
