From nobody Fri Oct 10 09:53:05 2025 Received: from mout-p-202.mailbox.org (mout-p-202.mailbox.org [80.241.56.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E2DA28F50F; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:51:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750161107; cv=none; b=pSagnSnjB3I4rwchB9R4TBvTxA6+UeNR86m98svtU/CFovm4m4vI2h/BLyvrHm2KeMOHxbjMcXSj0EgOC23zc0N6Cj5/lZhn6Dx6o/oUTnq0g4mfF5smtFYH44rxYlgXQK6dHYVwHnmZMZshIfFneZVJthSfqnU3eCzv1+fPIeU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750161107; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y4mjsyTP5z67FlVry+t4hTJy8smiUNYnO2n8VlzEBFA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=lvemY2cKNgje60HAsmh+yidDwlQiB2MCX1rsGo8Ceo4LNS7hgpihIlwExg/VOx53jCba9nDnyT2fJWf/WhUEY/a9lrha3U16JtfJpCaGRX5NIHer7qY3V7S0fXgjre7UIqvN8B62upnNPrhFY3FSxgFfMJ/FGL6J7OQqZVhudE8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=samsung.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pankajraghav.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=samsung.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pankajraghav.com Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-202.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4bM4wF51tqz9tJH; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:51:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Pankaj Raghav To: Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , Christian Brauner Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pankajraghav.com, Pankaj Raghav Subject: [PATCH] fs/buffer: fix comments to reflect logical block size Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:51:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20250617115138.101795-1-p.raghav@samsung.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4bM4wF51tqz9tJH Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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. Change it to logical block size to reflect the actual code. Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen --- fs/buffer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c index 8cf4a1dc481e..e818125d5c09 100644 --- a/fs/buffer.c +++ b/fs/buffer.c @@ -1122,7 +1122,7 @@ __getblk_slow(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t blo= ck, { bool blocking =3D gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp); =20 - /* Size must be multiple of hard sectorsize */ + /* Size must be multiple of logical block size */ if (unlikely(size & (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev)-1) || (size < 512 || size > PAGE_SIZE))) { printk(KERN_ERR "getblk(): invalid block size %d requested\n", base-commit: e04c78d86a9699d136910cfc0bdcf01087e3267e --=20 2.49.0