On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 4:53pm -0500, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/26/2014 02:51 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > 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. > > -1U should just work, IMHO, there's no reason we should need to cap it > at some synthetic value. That said, it seems it should be one of > those parameters that should be negotiated up and set appropriately. I'm saying set it to the underlying device's value for max_hw_sectors -- not some synthetic value. So I think we're saying the same thing. But it isn't immediately clear (to me) how that benefits virtio-blk users (obviously they are getting by today). So until that is pinned down I imagine nobody will care to extend the virtio-blk protocol to allow stacking max_hw_sectors and max_sectors up. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
