improve is misspelled in the subject. > @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ static int blk_validate_zoned_limits(struct queue_limits > *lim) > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED))) > return -EINVAL; > > + if (lim->max_active_zones && > + WARN_ON_ONCE(lim->max_open_zones > lim->max_active_zones)) > + lim->max_open_zones = lim->max_active_zones;
Given how active zones are defined this is an error condition, and should return -EINVAL. > diff --git a/block/blk-zoned.c b/block/blk-zoned.c > index 52abebf56027..2af4d5ca81d2 100644 > --- a/block/blk-zoned.c > +++ b/block/blk-zoned.c > @@ -1660,6 +1660,11 @@ static int disk_update_zone_resources(struct gendisk > *disk, > lim = queue_limits_start_update(q); > > nr_seq_zones = disk->nr_zones - nr_conv_zones; > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lim.max_active_zones > nr_seq_zones)) > + lim.max_active_zones = 0; > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lim.max_open_zones > nr_seq_zones)) > + lim.max_open_zones = 0; Why would you warn about this? Offering an open/active limit larger than the number of sequential zones is a pretty natural condition for certain corner cases (e.g. create only a tiny namespace on a ZNS SSD). This could also use a code comment explaining why the limit is adjusted.
