Re: [PATCH 02/10] block: virtio-blk: check logical block size

[Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 12:11 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 22:55 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > Christoph,
> > 
> > > Hmm, I wonder if we should simply add the check and warning to
> > > blk_queue_logical_block_size and add an error in that case.  Then
> > > drivers only have to check the error return, which might add a lot
> > > less boiler plate code.
> > 
> > Yep, I agree.
> > 
> 
> I also agree that this would be cleaner (I actually tried to implement
> this the way you suggest), but let me explain my reasoning for doing
> it
> this way.
> 
> The problem is that most current users of blk_queue_logical_block_size
> (43 uses in the tree, out of which only 9 use constant block size)
> check
> for the block size relatively early, often store it in some internal
> struct etc, prior to calling blk_queue_logical_block_size thus making
> them only to rely on blk_queue_logical_block_size as the check for 
> block size validity will need non-trivial changes in their code.
> 
> Instead of this adding blk_is_valid_logical_block_size allowed me
> to trivially convert most of the uses.
> 
> For RFC I converted only some drivers that I am more familiar with
> and/or can test but I can remove the driver's own checks in most other
> drivers with low chance of introducing a bug, even if I can't test the
> driver.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> I can also both make blk_queue_logical_block_size return an error
> value,
> and have blk_is_valid_logical_block_size and use either of these
> checks,
> depending on the driver with eventual goal of un-exporting
> blk_is_valid_logical_block_size.
> 
> Also note that I did add WARN_ON to blk_queue_logical_block_size.

Any update on this?

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

> 
> Best regards,
> 	Maxim Levitsky