On 12/2/20 11:11 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 2:10am -0500, > JeffleXu <jefflexu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/2/20 1:03 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>> What you've done here is fairly chaotic/disruptive: >>> 1) you emailed a patch out that isn't needed or ideal, I dealt already >>> staged a DM fix in linux-next for 5.10-rcX, see: >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-5.10-rcX&id=f28de262ddf09b635095bdeaf0e07ff507b3c41b >> >> Then ti->type->io_hints() is still bypassed when type->iterate_devices() >> not defined? > > Yes, the stacking of limits really is tightly coupled to device-based > influence. Hypothetically some DM target that doesn't remap to any data > devices may want to override limits... in practice there isn't a need > for this. If that changes we can take action to accommodate it.. but I'm > definitely not interested in modifying DM core in this area when there > isn't a demonstrated need. Thanks. -- Thanks, Jeffle -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
