Re: [PATCH RFC] yet more struct scsi_lun

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

 



On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> > Which in turn makes me think of applying the same idea
> > to max_sectors
> > 
> > shost->max_sectors = MAX_512B_SECTORS_UNLIMITED;
> 
> 
> Won't work.  max_sectors is communicated to the block layer, where we limit
> the overall size of the request for practical reasons.
> 
> Read the comment in libata-scsi's slave_configure:
> 
> /* TODO: 1024 is an arbitrary number, not the
> * hardware maximum.  This should be increased to
> * 65534 when Jens Axboe's patch for dynamically
> * determining max_sectors is merged.
> */
> 
> Right now, setting the true hardware / command set maximum would use way too
> much memory, with no way to get feedback from the VM.
> 
> This is why SCSI_DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS is defined to 1024.
> 
So, the block layer is just for devices using the page cache, after all!

If max_sectors is a VM thing, why is it set by _device drivers_?

Now, let me try to more be constructive. max_sectors is enforced in 
__bio_add_page(). Maybe this is not the correct place. Bios are advocated 
as general i/o concepts and they don't have any direct relation with VM.

-- 
Kai
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux