On 22/05/24 10:49AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 5/21/24 07:25, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
On 20/05/24 03:42PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
+ if (max_copy_bytes & (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1))
+ return -EINVAL;
Wouldn't it be more user-friendly if this check would be left out? Does any code
depend on max_copy_bytes being a multiple of the logical block size?
In block layer, we use max_copy_bytes to split larger copy into
device supported copy size.
Simple copy spec requires length to be logical block size aligned.
Hence this check.
Will blkdev_copy_sanity_check() reject invalid copy requests even if this
check is left out?
Yes, you are right. We have checks both places.
We will remove checks in one of the places.
Thank you,
Nitesh Shetty
