lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] block: introduce new field bd_flags in block_device
    > +	if (partno && bdev_flagged(disk->part0, BD_FLAG_HAS_SUBMIT_BIO))
    > + bdev_set_flag(bdev, BD_FLAG_HAS_SUBMIT_BIO);
    > else
    > + bdev_clear_flag(bdev, BD_FLAG_HAS_SUBMIT_BIO);

    While the block layer has a bit of history of using wrappers for
    testing, setting and clearing flags, I have to say I always find them
    rather confusing when reading the code.

    > +#define BD_FLAG_READ_ONLY 0 /* read-only-policy */

    I know this is copied from the existing field, but can you expand
    it a bit?

    > +#define BD_FLAG_WRITE_HOLDER 1
    > +#define BD_FLAG_HAS_SUBMIT_BIO 2
    > +#define BD_FLAG_MAKE_IT_FAIL 3

    And also write comments for these.

    > +
    > struct block_device {
    > sector_t bd_start_sect;
    > sector_t bd_nr_sectors;
    > @@ -44,10 +49,8 @@ struct block_device {
    > struct request_queue * bd_queue;
    > struct disk_stats __percpu *bd_stats;
    > unsigned long bd_stamp;
    > - bool bd_read_only; /* read-only policy */
    > + unsigned short bd_flags;

    I suspect you really need an unsigned long and atomic bit ops here.
    Even a lock would probably not work on alpha as it could affect
    the other fields in the same 32-bit alignment.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-11-22 08:29    [W:3.914 / U:1.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site