On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:16:21AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 2/17/22 1:07 AM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >> index efed3820cbf7..792e6d556589 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >> @@ -254,6 +254,13 @@ struct queue_limits {
> >> unsigned int discard_alignment;
> >> unsigned int zone_write_granularity;
> >>
> >> + unsigned long max_hw_copy_sectors;
> >> + unsigned long max_copy_sectors;
> >> + unsigned int max_hw_copy_range_sectors;
> >> + unsigned int max_copy_range_sectors;
> >> + unsigned short max_hw_copy_nr_ranges;
> >> + unsigned short max_copy_nr_ranges;
> >
> > Before limits start growing more.. I wonder if we should just
> > stuff hw offload stuff to its own struct within queue_limits.
> >
> > Christoph?
> >
>
> Potentially use a pointer to structure and maybe make it configurable,
Did you mean to make queue limits local or for hw offload and make that
a pointer? If so that seems odd because even for hw copy offload we
still need the other limits no?
So what I meant was that struct queue_limits seems to be getting large,
and that hw copy offload seems like an example use case where we should
probably use a separate struct for it. And while at it, well, start
adding kdocs for these things, because, there's tons of things which
could use kdoc love.
> although I'm not sure about the later part, I'll let Christoph decide
> that.
Luis
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
