Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187083-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <664eee0e.d40a0220.3fe4a.8d09SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 07:05:12 +0000
From: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Alasdair
	Kergon <agk@redhat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>, Mikulas Patocka
	<mpatocka@redhat.com>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig
	<hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Chaitanya Kulkarni
	<kch@nvidia.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Christian
	Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com, hare@suse.de,
	damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, anuj20.g@samsung.com, joshi.k@samsung.com,
	nitheshshetty@gmail.com, gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 01/12] block: Introduce queue limits and sysfs for
 copy-offload support
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <174d4908-b81c-4775-9b99-b0941451cb0e@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----Fualeei1.f5fhWGYL679EBd0hH5-OLgtfrOtH6wInDZGwDEe=_1f672_"
CMS-TYPE: 105P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <20240520102033.9361-1-nj.shetty@samsung.com>
	<CGME20240520102830epcas5p27274901f3d0c2738c515709890b1dec4@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
	<20240520102033.9361-2-nj.shetty@samsung.com>
	<d47b55ac-b986-4bb0-84f4-e193479444e3@acm.org>
	<20240521142509.o7fu7gpxcvsrviav@green245>
	<174d4908-b81c-4775-9b99-b0941451cb0e@acm.org>

------Fualeei1.f5fhWGYL679EBd0hH5-OLgtfrOtH6wInDZGwDEe=_1f672_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 22/05/24 10:49AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>On 5/21/24 07:25, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>On 20/05/24 03:42PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>>>+    if (max_copy_bytes & (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1))
>>>>+        return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be more user-friendly if this check would be left out? Does any code
>>>depend on max_copy_bytes being a multiple of the logical block size?
>>>
>>In block layer, we use max_copy_bytes to split larger copy into
>>device supported copy size.
>>Simple copy spec requires length to be logical block size aligned.
>>Hence this check.
>
>Will blkdev_copy_sanity_check() reject invalid copy requests even if this
>check is left out?
>
Yes, you are right. We have checks both places.
We will remove checks in one of the places.

Thank you,
Nitesh Shetty

------Fualeei1.f5fhWGYL679EBd0hH5-OLgtfrOtH6wInDZGwDEe=_1f672_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


------Fualeei1.f5fhWGYL679EBd0hH5-OLgtfrOtH6wInDZGwDEe=_1f672_--