Re: move features flags into queue_limits v2
- To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
- Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@linbit.com>, Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>, Christoph Böhmwalder <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 Monné <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: move features flags into queue_limits v2
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:23:40 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20240619142340.GA32100@lst.de>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] e8e718ca-7d3a-4bce-b88a-3bcbe1fa32b0@kernel.dk>
- References: <[🔎] 20240617060532.127975-1-hch@lst.de> <[🔎] 171880672048.115609.5962725096227627176.b4-ty@kernel.dk> <[🔎] e8e718ca-7d3a-4bce-b88a-3bcbe1fa32b0@kernel.dk>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 08:21:14AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Please check for-6.11/block, as I pulled in the changes to the main
> block branch and that threw some merge conflicts mostly due to Damien's
> changes in for-6.11/block. While fixing those up, I also came across
> oddities like:
>
> (limits->features & limits->features & BLK_FEAT_ZONED)) {
>
> which don't make much sense and hence I changed them to
>
> (limits->features & BLK_FEAT_ZONED)) {
Yeah. The above is harmless but of course completely pointless.
Reply to: