On 07/29/2014 07:56 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:37:49PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> But before we are running to fix this bug. Could we please do better and >> just remove the support for partitions >> all together. >> Since it *never* worked anyway, so probably no one needs it! Surly no >> one used it > > I fixed this in patch 4/22 of the v8 series. The correct place to > handle partitioning is in the block layer, not the individual drivers > (nor the filesystems). >
Sir Mathew hi > @@ -378,10 +378,12 @@ static int brd_direct_access(struct block_device *bdev, > sector_t sector, > > if (!brd) > return -ENODEV; > + sector += get_start_sect(bdev); > if (sector & (PAGE_SECTORS-1)) > return -EINVAL; > +/* Check is wrong here we need to check against bdev->bd_part->nr_sects */ > if (sector + PAGE_SECTORS > get_capacity(bdev->bd_disk)) > return -ERANGE; > page = brd_insert_page(brd, sector); > if (!page) > return -ENOSPC; you mean you fixed the brd_direct_access() hunk by pointing all users to a wrapper that does the proper offsetting, sure. But that is not the main bug I was talking about, the main BUG is that partitions are not supported at all because of the clubber of *part in brd_probe() > @@ -558,7 +564,8 @@ static struct kobject *brd_probe(dev_t dev, int *part, > void *data) > kobj = brd ? get_disk(brd->brd_disk) : NULL; > mutex_unlock(&brd_devices_mutex); > > - *part = 0; > +// Fix the partition BUG *part comes in correctly must not need to touch it > +// *part = 0; > return kobj; > } And my point is that: No one uses partitions with brd, why should we not remove it all together, why fix it and keep it? Cheers Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
