On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 11:41:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > +#define ZONES_PER_IOCTL 16384
> > +
> > +static void
> > +report_zones_cb(
> > + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > + struct blk_zone *zone)
> > +{
> > + xfs_fsblock_t zsbno = xfs_daddr_to_rtb(mp, zone->start);
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nit: xfs_rtblock_t ?
Updated.
> Nit: inconsistent styles in declaration indentation
Fixed.
> > + device_size /= 512; /* BLKGETSIZE64 reports a byte value */
>
> device_size = BTOBB(device_size); ?
Sure.
> > +
> > + switch (zones[i].type) {
> > + case BLK_ZONE_TYPE_CONVENTIONAL:
> > + case BLK_ZONE_TYPE_SEQWRITE_REQ:
> > + break;
> > + case BLK_ZONE_TYPE_SEQWRITE_PREF:
> > + do_error(
> > +_("Found sequential write preferred zone\n"));
>
> I wonder, can "sequential preferred" zones be treated as if they are
> conventional zones? Albeit really slow ones?
Yes, they could. However in the kernel we've decided that dealing
them is too painful for the few prototypes build that way and reject
them in the block layer. So we won't ever seem them here except with
a rather old kernel.
