On 1/23/24 02:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Now that the block layer tracks a separate user max discard limit, there > is no need to prevent nvme from updating it on controller capability > changes. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> > --- > drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 10 ---------- > 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c > index 85ab0fcf9e8864..ef70268dccbc5a 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c > +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c > @@ -1754,16 +1754,6 @@ static void nvme_config_discard(struct nvme_ctrl > *ctrl, struct gendisk *disk, > BUILD_BUG_ON(PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(struct nvme_dsm_range) < > NVME_DSM_MAX_RANGES); > > - /* > - * If discard is already enabled, don't reset queue limits. > - * > - * This works around the fact that the block layer can't cope well with > - * updating the hardware limits when overridden through sysfs. This is > - * harmless because discard limits in NVMe are purely advisory. > - */ > - if (queue->limits.max_discard_sectors) > - return; > - > blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(queue, max_discard_sectors);
This function references max_user_discard_sectors but that access is done without holding the queue limits mutex. Is that safe ? > if (ctrl->dmrl) > blk_queue_max_discard_segments(queue, ctrl->dmrl); -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
