Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Jun'ichi" == Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Jun'ichi> Umm, with this, BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS becomes upper bound of > Jun'ichi> max_hw_sectors and the values of underlying devices are not > Jun'ichi> propagated to the stacking devices. > > Well, max_sectors is already bounded by this. max_hw_sectors only > really matters for PC commands, so I'm not sure it's a big deal for > DM. But I guess we could set the default max_hw_sectors to -1. > > I'm just trying to avoid these scattered if-0-set-it-to-something-else > cases. I'd much rather have the defaults do the right thing. I agree with that. I had to do the if-0-set-it-to-something-else to avoid putting unnecessary cap on max_hw_sectors. If we aren't sure, shouldn't we set its default to -1 or putting comments in blk_set_default_limits() at least to avoid possible confusion in future? Thanks, -- Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
