>> Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This motivation sounds good. I tried this patch. With a quick test it looks
> working good for me. Please find minor comments in line.
>
> [...]
>
>> +static void null_zero_sector(struct nullb_device *d, sector_t sect,
>> + sector_t nr_sects, bool cache)
>> +{
>> + struct radix_tree_root *root = cache ? &d->cache : &d->data;
>> + struct nullb_page *t_page;
>> + unsigned int offset;
>> + void *dest;
>> +
>> + t_page = radix_tree_lookup(root, sect >> PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT);
>> + if (!t_page)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + offset = (sect & SECTOR_MASK) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
>> + dest = kmap_atomic(t_page->page);
>> + memset(dest + offset, 0, SECTOR_SIZE * nr_sects);
>> + kunmap_atomic(dest);
>> +}
>
> Did you consider to call null_lookup_page() for __null_lookup_page() from
> null_zero_sector()? It may simplify this function a bit.
>
I found this clear and easy than going over call chain when
debugging.
>> +
>> static struct nullb_page *null_radix_tree_insert(struct nullb *nullb, u64 idx,
[...]
>>
>> +static void null_config_write_zeroes(struct nullb *nullb)
>> +{
>> + if (!nullb->dev->write_zeroes)
>> + return;
>> + blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(nullb->q, UINT_MAX >> 9);
>
> Just comment: this value UINT_MAX >> 9 sounds a bit weird, but probably ok. This
> value was introduced by commit 306eb6b4ad4f ("nullb: support discard") to call
> blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(). I guess you chose the same value for write
> zeroes.
>
Yes indeed, plz have a look end patches to allow user to set this value.
-ck
