On 18/06/2025 09.58, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> Commit e1defc4ff0cf ("block: Do away with the notion of hardsect_size")
> changed hardsect_size to logical block size. The comment on top still
> says hardsect_size.
>
> Remove the comment as the code is pretty clear. While we are at it,
> format the relevant code.
>
> Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/buffer.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> index 8cf4a1dc481e..a14d281c6a74 100644
> --- a/fs/buffer.c
> +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> @@ -1122,9 +1122,8 @@ __getblk_slow(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> {
> bool blocking = gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp);
>
> - /* Size must be multiple of hard sectorsize */
> - if (unlikely(size & (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev)-1) ||
> - (size < 512 || size > PAGE_SIZE))) {
> + if (unlikely(size & (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1) ||
> + (size < 512 || size > PAGE_SIZE))) {
Nit: Would it make sense to use SECTOR_SIZE here instead of the hard-coded 512?
> printk(KERN_ERR "getblk(): invalid block size %d requested\n",
> size);
> printk(KERN_ERR "logical block size: %d\n",
>
> base-commit: e04c78d86a9699d136910cfc0bdcf01087e3267e
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
