On 10/19/20 4:47 AM, xiakaixu1987@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > We use the SECTOR_SHIFT macro to define the sector size shift, so maybe > it is more reasonable to use it than the magic number 9. > > Signed-off-by: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hm ... SECTOR_SHIFT is a block layer #define, really, and blkdev_issue_zeroout is a block layer interface I guess. We also have our own BBSHIFT in XFS which is used elsewhere, though. And FWIW, /many/ other fs/* manipulations still use the "- 9" today when converting s_blocksize_bits to sectors. *shrug* this seems like something that should change tree-wide, if it's to be changed at all. -Eric > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > index f2a8a0e75e1f..9f02c1824205 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > @@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ xfs_zero_extent( > sector_t block = XFS_BB_TO_FSBT(mp, sector); > > return blkdev_issue_zeroout(target->bt_bdev, > - block << (mp->m_super->s_blocksize_bits - 9), > - count_fsb << (mp->m_super->s_blocksize_bits - 9), > + block << (mp->m_super->s_blocksize_bits - SECTOR_SHIFT), > + count_fsb << (mp->m_super->s_blocksize_bits - SECTOR_SHIFT), > GFP_NOFS, 0); > } > >
