Re: [RFC] sd: dynamically adjust SD_MAX_WS16_BLOCKS as per the actual logical block size

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12 August 2016 at 11:10, Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> However, the CDB transfer length limit is really not the main issue
> here, it's bi_size that we need to enforce.
>
> After contemplating a bit I think it would be cleanest to add
> BLK_MAX_BIO_SECTORS and clamp on that in blk_queue_max_foobar() like we
> do with some of the other queue limits. Move the enforcement to block
> where the actual limit originates rather than code around it in sd.

I don't really follow. What would this BLK_MAX_BIO_SECTORS be? It
doesn't appear to me that a static value is going to address the
problem I am addressing in this patch.

>
> Also, please use ilog2() instead of division for things like this.
>
> --
> Martin K. Petersen      Oracle Linux Engineering
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux