On 15.01.24 20:39, David Sterba wrote:
> There's a warning in btrfs_issue_discard() when the range is not aligned
> to 512 bytes, originally added in 4d89d377bbb0 ("btrfs:
> btrfs_issue_discard ensure offset/length are aligned to sector
> boundaries"). We can't do sub-sector writes anyway so the adjustment is
> the only thing that we can do and the warning is unnecessary.
>
> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.19+
> Reported-by: syzbot+4a4f1eba14eb5c3417d1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 6d680031211a..8e8cc1111277 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -1260,7 +1260,8 @@ static int btrfs_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, u64 start, u64 len,
> u64 bytes_left, end;
> u64 aligned_start = ALIGN(start, 1 << SECTOR_SHIFT);
>
> - if (WARN_ON(start != aligned_start)) {
> + /* Adjust the range to be aligned to 512B sectors if necessary. */
> + if (start != aligned_start) {
> len -= aligned_start - start;
> len = round_down(len, 1 << SECTOR_SHIFT);
> start = aligned_start;
Maybe leave a
btrfs_warn(fs_info, "adjusting discard range to 512b boundary");
in there?
Or is info a more appropriate level?
