>>>>> "Jun'ichi" == Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Jun'ichi> If we aren't sure, shouldn't we set its default to -1 or Jun'ichi> putting comments in blk_set_default_limits() at least to avoid Jun'ichi> possible confusion in future? Jens, what do you think about this? Goes on top of what you have queued... block: Do not clamp max_hw_sectors for stacking devices Stacking devices do not have an inherent max_hw_sector limit. Set the default to INT_MAX so we are bounded only by capabilities of the underlying storage. Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c index cd9b730..eaf122f 100644 --- a/block/blk-settings.c +++ b/block/blk-settings.c @@ -111,7 +111,8 @@ void blk_set_default_limits(struct queue_limits *lim) lim->max_hw_segments = MAX_HW_SEGMENTS; lim->seg_boundary_mask = BLK_SEG_BOUNDARY_MASK; lim->max_segment_size = MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE; - lim->max_sectors = lim->max_hw_sectors = BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS; + lim->max_sectors = BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS; + lim->max_hw_sectors = INT_MAX; lim->logical_block_size = lim->physical_block_size = lim->io_min = 512; lim->bounce_pfn = (unsigned long)(BLK_BOUNCE_ANY >> PAGE_SHIFT); lim->alignment_offset = 0; -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
