On 6/14/22 02:09, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
blk_rq_get_max_sectors always uses q->limits.chunk_sectors as the chunk_sectors argument, and already checks for max_sectors through the call to blk_queue_get_max_sectors. That means much of blk_max_size_offset is not needed and open coding it simplifies the code.Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> --- block/blk-merge.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c index db2e03c8af7f4..df003ecfbd474 100644 --- a/block/blk-merge.c +++ b/block/blk-merge.c @@ -566,17 +566,18 @@ static inline unsigned int blk_rq_get_max_sectors(struct request *rq, sector_t offset) { struct request_queue *q = rq->q; + unsigned int max_sectors;if (blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq))return q->limits.max_hw_sectors;+ max_sectors = blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq));if (!q->limits.chunk_sectors || req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_DISCARD || req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE) - return blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq)); - - return min(blk_max_size_offset(q, offset, 0), - blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq))); + return max_sectors; + return min(max_sectors, + blk_chunk_sectors_left(offset, q->limits.chunk_sectors)); }
blk_set_default_limits() initializes chunk_sectors to zero and blk_chunk_sectors_left() triggers a division by zero if a zero is passed as the second argument. What am I missing?
Thanks, Bart. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
