On 10/21/22 08:34, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 10/20/22 16:13, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 10/20/22 07:23, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c b/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c >>> index 1f154f92f4c2..bc811ab52c4a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c >>> +++ b/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c >>> @@ -157,6 +157,10 @@ static int g_max_sectors; >>> module_param_named(max_sectors, g_max_sectors, int, 0444); >>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_sectors, "Maximum size of a command (in 512B sectors)"); >>> >>> +static unsigned int g_max_segment_size = 1UL << 31; >> >> Nit: UINT_MAX ? > > Hi Damien, > > That would be a valid alternative. I will consider changing the value > into UINT_MAX. > >>> @@ -2088,6 +2100,7 @@ static int null_add_dev(struct nullb_device *dev) >>> nullb->q->queuedata = nullb; >>> blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT, nullb->q); >>> blk_queue_flag_clear(QUEUE_FLAG_ADD_RANDOM, nullb->q); >>> + blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_SUB_PAGE_SEGMENTS, nullb->q); >> >> Where is this defined ? I do not see this flag defined anywhere in Linus >> tree nor in Jens for-next... > > That flag has been defined in patch 05/10 of this series. > > In case you would like to take a look, the code I used to test this > series is available here: > https://github.com/bvanassche/blktests/commits/master Please always send full patch series. Hard to review a patch without the context for it :) > > Thanks, > > Bart. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
