Increase block size variable size to 32-bit unsigned to be able to
support block devices larger than 32k (starting from 64 KiB).
Physical and logical block size already support unsigned 32-bit.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <[email protected]>
---
While experimenting and doing code inspection for large block
devices, we found a limitation of a 32 KiB block size due to the bs
variable type. With that limitation and in combination with a large
block device, this results in a kernel BUG when the block layer
attempts to split a block size of 0 bytes.
Increasing the value to 32-bit unsigned, allows to support large block
devices starting from 64 KiB. In addition, this bs variable type
aligns with the queue_limits logical/physical_block_size types.
drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
index 151b23400ada..b4bc48f2a011 100644
--- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
@@ -1835,7 +1835,7 @@ static void nvme_update_disk_info(struct gendisk *disk,
struct nvme_ns *ns, struct nvme_id_ns *id)
{
sector_t capacity = nvme_lba_to_sect(ns, le64_to_cpu(id->nsze));
- unsigned short bs = 1 << ns->lba_shift;
+ u32 bs = 1 << ns->lba_shift;
u32 atomic_bs, phys_bs, io_opt = 0;
/*
--
2.40.1
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:42:53PM +0000, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> Increase block size variable size to 32-bit unsigned to be able to
> support block devices larger than 32k (starting from 64 KiB).
>
> Physical and logical block size already support unsigned 32-bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <[email protected]>
Luis
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:42:53PM +0000, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> Increase block size variable size to 32-bit unsigned to be able to
> support block devices larger than 32k (starting from 64 KiB).
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <[email protected]>
> + u32 bs = 1 << ns->lba_shift;
Make that 1 a 1U so that we're not going to run into sign extension
issues when using up all bits in the u32 :)
Otherwise looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
From: Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 31 May 2023 14:03
>
> > + u32 bs = 1 << ns->lba_shift;
>
> Make that 1 a 1U so that we're not going to run into sign extension
> issues when using up all bits in the u32 :)
Not 'sign extension' but obscure integer shift/conversion issues
that really only affect 1's compliment and sign-overpunch cpu.
I'm not even sure gcc/clang support any non 2's compliment systems.
> Otherwise looks good:
Probably improves the generated code as well.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Thanks, applied to 6.5 with the '1U' suggestion folded in.