On 2020/07/21 19:54, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> This allows to remove loop's own check for supported block size
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevi...@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/loop.c | 23 +++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 475e1a738560d..9984c8f824271 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -228,19 +228,6 @@ static void __loop_update_dio(struct loop_device *lo, 
> bool dio)
>               blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
>  }
>  
> -/**
> - * loop_validate_block_size() - validates the passed in block size
> - * @bsize: size to validate
> - */
> -static int
> -loop_validate_block_size(unsigned short bsize)
> -{
> -     if (bsize < 512 || bsize > PAGE_SIZE || !is_power_of_2(bsize))
> -             return -EINVAL;
> -
> -     return 0;
> -}
> -
>  /**
>   * loop_set_size() - sets device size and notifies userspace
>   * @lo: struct loop_device to set the size for
> @@ -1119,9 +1106,10 @@ static int loop_configure(struct loop_device *lo, 
> fmode_t mode,
>       }
>  
>       if (config->block_size) {
> -             error = loop_validate_block_size(config->block_size);
> -             if (error)
> +             if (!blk_is_valid_logical_block_size(config->block_size)) {
> +                     error = -EINVAL;
>                       goto out_unlock;
> +             }
>       }
>  
>       error = loop_set_status_from_info(lo, &config->info);
> @@ -1607,9 +1595,8 @@ static int loop_set_block_size(struct loop_device *lo, 
> unsigned long arg)
>       if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
>               return -ENXIO;
>  
> -     err = loop_validate_block_size(arg);
> -     if (err)
> -             return err;
> +     if (!blk_is_valid_logical_block_size(arg))
> +             return -EINVAL;
>  
>       if (lo->lo_queue->limits.logical_block_size == arg)
>               return 0;
> 

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lem...@wdc.com>

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Reply via email to