On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:05:03AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 6/4/24 06:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 06:43:56AM +0000, Nitesh Shetty wrote: >>>> Also most block limits are in kb. Not that I really know why we are >>>> doing that, but is there a good reason to deviate from that scheme? >>>> >>> We followed discard as a reference, but we can move to kb, if that helps >>> with overall readability. >> >> I'm not really sure what is better. Does anyone remember why we did >> the _kb version? Either way some amount of consistency would be nice. >> > If memory serves correctly we introduced the _kb versions as a convenience > to the user; exposing values in 512 bytes increments tended > to be confusing, especially when it comes to LBA values (is the size in > units of hardware sector size? 512 increments? kilobytes?) Maybe. In the meantime I did a bit more of research, and only max_sectors and max_hw_sectors are reported in kb. chunk_sectors is reported in 512 byte sectors, and everything else is reported in bytes. So sticking to bytes is probably right, and I was wrong about "most block limits above". Sorry.
