On 3/22/2022 1:53 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> -static void hwpoison_clear(struct pmem_device *pmem,
>> -            phys_addr_t phys, unsigned int len)
>> +static phys_addr_t to_phys(struct pmem_device *pmem, phys_addr_t offset)
>>   {
>> +    return pmem->phys_addr + offset;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static sector_t to_sect(struct pmem_device *pmem, phys_addr_t offset)
>> +{
>> +    return (offset - pmem->data_offset) / 512;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static phys_addr_t to_offset(struct pmem_device *pmem, sector_t sector)
>> +{
>> +    return sector * 512 + pmem->data_offset;
>> +}
> 
> The multiplicate / divison using 512 could use shifts using
> SECTOR_SHIFT.

Nice, will do.

> 
>> +
>> +static void clear_hwpoison(struct pmem_device *pmem, phys_addr_t offset,
>> +            unsigned int len)
> 
>> +static void clear_bb(struct pmem_device *pmem, sector_t sector, long blks)
> 
> All these functions lack a pmem_ prefix.

Did you mean all of the helpers or just "clear_hwpoison" and "clear_bb"? 
   The reason I ask is that there are existing static helpers without 
pmem_ prefix, just short function names.

> 
>> +static blk_status_t __pmem_clear_poison(struct pmem_device *pmem,
>> +            phys_addr_t offset, unsigned int len,
>> +            unsigned int *blks)
>> +{
>> +    phys_addr_t phys = to_phys(pmem, offset);
>>      long cleared;
>> +    blk_status_t rc;
>>   
>> +    cleared = nvdimm_clear_poison(to_dev(pmem), phys, len);
>> +    *blks = cleared / 512;
>> +    rc = (cleared < len) ? BLK_STS_IOERR : BLK_STS_OK;
>> +    if (cleared <= 0 || *blks == 0)
>> +            return rc;
> 
> This look odd.  I think just returing the cleared byte value would
> make much more sense:
> 
> static long __pmem_clear_poison(struct pmem_device *pmem,
>               phys_addr_t offset, unsigned int len)
> {
>       long cleared = nvdimm_clear_poison(to_dev(pmem), phys, len);
> 
>       if (cleared > 0) {
>               clear_hwpoison(pmem, offset, cleared);
>               arch_invalidate_pmem(pmem->virt_addr + offset, len);
>       }
> 
>       return cleared;
> }

Yes, this is cleaner, will do.

Thanks!
-jane


Reply via email to