On 2018/10/12 16:35, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 10/12/18 4:30 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> The 32 bits overflow check for the zone size value is already done
>> within sd_zbc_check_zones() with the test:
>>
>> } else if (logical_to_sectors(sdkp->device, zone_blocks) > UINT_MAX) {
>>
>> so there is no need to check again for an out of range value in
>> sd_zbc_read_zones(). Simplify the code and fix sd_zbc_check_zones()
>> error return to -EFBIG instead of -ENODEV if the zone size is too large.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c | 15 ++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c b/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c
>> index ca73c46931c0..44b64b4a922a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd_zbc.c
>> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ static int sd_zbc_check_zoned_characteristics(struct scsi_disk *sdkp,
>> * Returns the zone size in number of blocks upon success or an error code
>> * upon failure.
>> */
>> -static s64 sd_zbc_check_zones(struct scsi_disk *sdkp)
>> +static s32 sd_zbc_check_zones(struct scsi_disk *sdkp)
>> {
>> u64 zone_blocks = 0;
>> sector_t max_lba, block = 0;
> Does this have to be an 's32' ?
> Seeing that it's overloaded with an error code, and never sent to any
> hardware, can't we just make it a simple 'int' ?
OK. Will do.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
