On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 3:54pm -0500, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/26/2014 01:51 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 2:48pm -0500, > > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >> That code isn't even in mainline, as far as I can tell... > > > > Right, it is old RHEL6 code. > > > > But I've yet to determine what changed upstream that enables this to > > "just work" with a really large max_sectors (I haven't been looking > > either). > > Kind of hard for the rest of us to say, since it's triggering a BUG in > code we don't have :-) I never asked you or others to weigh in on old RHEL6 code. Once I realized upstream worked even if max_sectors is _really_ high I said "sorry for the noise". But while you're here, I wouldn't mind getting your take on virtio-blk setting max_hw_sectors to -1U. As I said in my original reply to mst: it only makes sense to set a really high initial upper bound like that in a driver if that driver goes on to stack an underlying device's limit. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
