On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:16:33AM +0100, John Garry wrote: >> -static void sd_config_write_same(struct scsi_disk *); >> +static void sd_config_discard(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, struct queue_limits *lim, >> + unsigned int mode); > > Are there any reasons why we keep forward declarations like this? AFAICS, > this sd_config_discard forward declaration could be removed. Mostly to avoid churn. This is a series that needs to feed into the block tree, so I don't want major churn in sd.c. Maybe after the dust has settled it would be nice to bring sd.c into a natural order. >> - blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(q, sdkp->max_ws_blocks * >> - (logical_block_size >> 9)); >> + lim->max_write_zeroes_sectors = >> + sdkp->max_ws_blocks * (logical_block_size >> 9); > > Would it be ok to use SECTOR_SHIFT here? A similar change is made in > sd_config_discard(), above Sure. >> + sd_config_discard(sdkp, lim, sd_discard_mode(sdkp)); >> } >> out: >> @@ -3278,10 +3290,10 @@ static void sd_read_block_limits_ext(struct scsi_disk *sdkp) >> } >> /** > > below is not a kernel doc comment And that is on the one hand intentional to avoid documenting all the obvious paramters in a local function, but on the other hand requires removing the double *. Fixed. >> @@ -3683,28 +3696,33 @@ static int sd_revalidate_disk(struct gendisk >> *disk) >> q->limits.max_dev_sectors = logical_to_sectors(sdp, dev_max); > > > is setting q->limits.max_dev_sectors directly proper? No, and I've already fixed it in my local tree.
