>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: Mike> So the question: is _not_ using the blk_queue_*() setters Mike> perfectly fine? Given that DM has always _not_ used them the Mike> quick answer is "seems fine". Mike> But I need to dig a bit more to understand if the additional logic Mike> in the blk_queue_*() setters is something DM shouldn't be Mike> circumventing. The original intent was that drivers like DM and MD would seed their limits using the blk_queue* calls before adding any component devices. blk_stack_limits() would then scale accordingly for every new device added. Is there any reason in particular that this approach wouldn't work for DM? I.e. set defaults ahead of time instead of doing it upon table completion using check_for_valid_limits()? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
