diff mbox series

[1/7] block: add queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask()

Message ID 20230628093500.68779-1-frank.li@vivo.com
State New
Headers
Series [1/7] block: add queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask() |

Commit Message

李扬韬 June 28, 2023, 9:34 a.m. UTC 
  Introduce queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask()
to simplify code, which replace (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1)
and (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1).

Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li@vivo.com>
---
 include/linux/blkdev.h | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

Comments

Bill O'Donnell June 28, 2023, 4:45 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:34:54PM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote:
> Introduce queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask()
> to simplify code, which replace (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1)
> and (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li@vivo.com>

Looks fine.
Reviewed-by: Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@redhat.com>

> ---
>  include/linux/blkdev.h | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> index ed44a997f629..0cc0d1694ef6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> @@ -1150,11 +1150,21 @@ static inline unsigned queue_logical_block_size(const struct request_queue *q)
>  	return retval;
>  }
>  
> +static inline unsigned int queue_logical_block_mask(const struct request_queue *q)
> +{
> +	return queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1;
> +}
> +
>  static inline unsigned int bdev_logical_block_size(struct block_device *bdev)
>  {
>  	return queue_logical_block_size(bdev_get_queue(bdev));
>  }
>  
> +static inline unsigned int bdev_logical_block_mask(struct block_device *bdev)
> +{
> +	return bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1;
> +}
> +
>  static inline unsigned int queue_physical_block_size(const struct request_queue *q)
>  {
>  	return q->limits.physical_block_size;
> -- 
> 2.39.0
>
Matthew Wilcox June 28, 2023, 4:46 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:34:54PM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote:
> Introduce queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask()
> to simplify code, which replace (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1)
> and (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1).

The thing is that I know what queue_logical_block_size - 1 does.
That's the low bits.  _Which_ bits are queue_logical_block_mask?
The high bits or the low bits?  And before you say "It's obviously",
we have both ways round in the kernel today.

I am not in favour of this change.  I might be in favour of bool
queue_logical_block_aligned(q, x), but even then it doesn't seem worth
the bits.
李扬韬 June 29, 2023, 3:44 a.m. UTC | #3 
On 2023/6/29 0:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:34:54PM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote:
>> Introduce queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask()
>> to simplify code, which replace (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1)
>> and (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1).
> The thing is that I know what queue_logical_block_size - 1 does.
> That's the low bits.  _Which_ bits are queue_logical_block_mask?
> The high bits or the low bits?  And before you say "It's obviously",
> we have both ways round in the kernel today.


I guess for this you mentioned, can we name it bdev_logical_block_lmask 
and queue_logical_block_lmask?


Thx,

>
> I am not in favour of this change.  I might be in favour of bool
> queue_logical_block_aligned(q, x), but even then it doesn't seem worth
> the bits.
Darrick J. Wong June 29, 2023, 4:34 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:44:35AM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote:
> On 2023/6/29 0:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:34:54PM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote:
> > > Introduce queue_logical_block_mask() and bdev_logical_block_mask()
> > > to simplify code, which replace (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1)
> > > and (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1).
> > The thing is that I know what queue_logical_block_size - 1 does.
> > That's the low bits.  _Which_ bits are queue_logical_block_mask?
> > The high bits or the low bits?  And before you say "It's obviously",
> > we have both ways round in the kernel today.
> 
> 
> I guess for this you mentioned, can we name it bdev_logical_block_lmask and
> queue_logical_block_lmask?

{bdev,queue}_offset_in_lba() ?

--D

> 
> Thx,
> 
> > 
> > I am not in favour of this change.  I might be in favour of bool
> > queue_logical_block_aligned(q, x), but even then it doesn't seem worth
> > the bits.
Christoph Hellwig June 29, 2023, 5:44 a.m. UTC | #5 
What is the value add of this series?
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index ed44a997f629..0cc0d1694ef6 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -1150,11 +1150,21 @@  static inline unsigned queue_logical_block_size(const struct request_queue *q)
 	return retval;
 }
 
+static inline unsigned int queue_logical_block_mask(const struct request_queue *q)
+{
+	return queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1;
+}
+
 static inline unsigned int bdev_logical_block_size(struct block_device *bdev)
 {
 	return queue_logical_block_size(bdev_get_queue(bdev));
 }
 
+static inline unsigned int bdev_logical_block_mask(struct block_device *bdev)
+{
+	return bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1;
+}
+
 static inline unsigned int queue_physical_block_size(const struct request_queue *q)
 {
 	return q->limits.physical_block_size;