Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 17:46:34 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Yangtao Li <frank.li@vivo.com>
Cc:     axboe@kernel.dk, song@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@kernel.org, xiang@kernel.org, chao@kernel.org,
        huyue2@coolpad.com, jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com, hch@infradead.org,
        djwong@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] block: add queue_logical_block_mask() and
 bdev_logical_block_mask()
Message-ID: <ZJxj6odz49iB5Mmm@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230628093500.68779-1-frank.li@vivo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230628093500.68779-1-frank.li@vivo.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.