On 5/1/25 8:22 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
Personally I sometimes spam a bunch of `noinline` into code
I'm debugging so this seems like a way to just slap that same thing on
the whole tree without dirtying the code, right?
If this is for test builds only, has it been consider to add
-fno-inline-
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Fold blk_flush_policy into the only caller to prepare for pending changes
to it.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
queue_attr_store updates attributes used to control generating I/O, and
can cause malformed bios if changed with I/O in flight. Freeze the queue
in common code instead of adding it to almost every attribute.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Move setting the cache control flags in nbd in preparation for moving
these flags into the queue_limits structure.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
virtblk_update_cache_mode boils down to a single call to
blk_queue_write_cache. Remove it in preparation for moving the cache
control flags into the queue_limits.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This prepares for moving the rotational flag into the queue_limits and
also fixes it for the case where the loop device is backed by a block
device.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
Van Assche
-by: Bart Van Assche
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Simplify loop_reconfigure_limits by always updating the discard limits.
This adds a little more work to loop_set_block_size, but doesn't change
the outcome as the discard flag won't change.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
__loop_clr_fd wants to clear all settings on the device. Prepare for
moving more settings into the block limits by open coding
loop_reconfigure_limits.
If Damien's comment is addressed, feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 6/10/24 10:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Since commit 7437bb73f087 ("block: remove support for the host aware zone
model"), only ZBC devices expose a zoned access model. sd_is_zoned is
used to check for that and thus return false for host aware devices.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
se the I/O completion handlers can't
take sleeping locks or freezer the queue. Keep the existing clearing
of the relevant field to zero, but replace the old blk_queue_max_*
APIs with new disable APIs that force the value to 0.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 5/28/24 22:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Remove all APIs that are unused now that sd and sr have been converted
to the atomic queue limits API.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 5/28/24 22:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Fall through to the main call to blk_queue_max_discard_sectors given that
max_blocks has been initialized to zero above instead of duplicating the
call.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
atomic queue limits API.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
queue limits API.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
code has probably been
around for far too long to change this now.
If Damien's feedback gets addressed, feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
^^
rbd?
user max_sectors value, so this is a bit of a behavior change that
could use careful review from people familiar with rbd.
Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
actually failed.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 5/28/24 22:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Split the logic to pick the right discard mode into a little helper
to prepare for further changes.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
On 12/5/23 04:37, Yu Kuai wrote:
+static inline u8 block_bits(struct block_device *bdev)
+{
+ return bdev->bd_inode->i_blkbits;
+}
This function needs a name that's more descriptive.
Thanks,
Bart.
On 7/4/23 09:14, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 07:06:26AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 7/4/23 05:21, Jan Kara wrote:
+struct bdev_handle {
+ struct block_device *bdev;
+ void *holder;
+};
Please explain in the patch description why a holder pointer is
On 7/4/23 05:21, Jan Kara wrote:
+struct bdev_handle {
+ struct block_device *bdev;
+ void *holder;
+};
Please explain in the patch description why a holder pointer is
introduced in struct bdev_handle and how it relates to the bd_holder
pointer in struct block_device. Is one of th
On 10/21/22 02:22, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
We got the following report in Debian after an update from 5.10.140 to
the current 5.10.149. Full quoting below (from
https://bugs.debian.org/1022126). Does this ring some bell about known
regressions?
Only three mpt3sas changes are new in v5.10.14
ent in the in
include/linux/genhd.h which should be used to read the
bdev->hd_part->nr_sects.
For the entire series:
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/
On 8/20/19 11:14 PM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
This patch introduces helper function to read the number of sectors
from struct block_device->bd_part member. For more details Please refer
to the comment in the include/linux/genhd.h for part_nr_sects_read().
Reviewed-by: Minwoo Im
Reviewed-by: Ma
On 7/2/19 10:42 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
+/* Helper function to read the bdev->bd_part->nr_sects */
+static inline sector_t bdev_nr_sects(struct block_device *bdev)
+{
+ return part_nr_sects_read(bdev->bd_part);
+}
Is the comment above bdev_nr_sects() really useful or should it be le
28 matches
Mail list logo
