On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2/3/22 10:50, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 2/1/22 10:32, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > /**
> > > > + * blk_queue_max_copy_sectors - set maximum copy offload sectors for
> > > > the
> > > > queue
> > > > + * @q: the request queue for the device
> > > > + * @size: the maximum copy offload sectors
> > > > + */
> > > > +void blk_queue_max_copy_sectors(struct request_queue *q, unsigned int
> > > > size)
> > > > +{
> > > > + q->limits.max_copy_sectors = size;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_queue_max_copy_sectors);
> > >
> > > Please either change the unit of 'size' into bytes or change its type into
> > > sector_t.
> >
> > blk_queue_chunk_sectors, blk_queue_max_discard_sectors,
> > blk_queue_max_write_same_sectors, blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors,
> > blk_queue_max_zone_append_sectors also have the unit of sectors and the
> > argument is "unsigned int". Should blk_queue_max_copy_sectors be
> > different?
>
> As far as I know using the type sector_t for variables that represent a number
> of sectors is a widely followed convention:
>
> $ git grep -w sector_t | wc -l
> 2575
>
> I would appreciate it if that convention would be used consistently, even if
> that means modifying existing code.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Changing the sector limit variables in struct queue_limits from unsigned
int to sector_t would increase the size of the structure and its cache
footprint.
And we can't send bios larger than 4GiB anyway because bi_size is 32-bit.
Jens, what do you think about it? Should the sectors limits be sector_t?
Mikulas
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
