Re: [PATCH 03/26] loop: stop using loop_reconfigure_limits in __loop_clr_fd
- To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
- Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@linbit.com>, Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>, Christoph B??hmwalder <christoph.boehmwalder@linbit.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Roger Pau Monn?? <roger.pau@citrix.com>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>, Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@linux.ibm.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, nbd@other.debian.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/26] loop: stop using loop_reconfigure_limits in __loop_clr_fd
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:54:53 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20240611055453.GA3384@lst.de>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] ca5a3441-768a-4331-a1c2-a4bdadf2f150@kernel.org>
- References: <[🔎] 20240611051929.513387-1-hch@lst.de> <[🔎] 20240611051929.513387-4-hch@lst.de> <[🔎] ca5a3441-768a-4331-a1c2-a4bdadf2f150@kernel.org>
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 02:53:19PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > + /* reset the block size to the default */
> > + lim = queue_limits_start_update(lo->lo_queue);
> > + lim.logical_block_size = 512;
>
> Nit: SECTOR_SIZE ? maybe ?
Yes. I was following the existing code, but SECTOR_SIZE is probably
a better choice here.
Reply to: