On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 04:31:58PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 2/6/23 16:19, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > But I'm trying to do a careful review here. > > That's appreciated :-) > > > The commit log did not describe what *does* happen in these situations today, > > and you seem to now be suggesting in the worst case corruption can happen. > > That changes the patch context quite a bit! > > > > My question above still stands though, how many block drivers have a max > > hw sector smaller than the equivalent PAGE_SIZE. If you make your > > change, even if it fixes some new use case where corruption is seen, can > > it regress some old use cases for some old controllers? > > The blk_queue_max_hw_sectors() change has been requested by a contributor to > the MMC driver (I'm not familiar with the MMC driver). > > I'm not aware of any storage controllers for which the maximum segment size > is below 4 KiB. Then the commit log should mention that. Because do you admit that it could possible change their behaviour? > For some storage controllers, e.g. the UFS Exynos controller, the maximum > supported segment size is 4 KiB. This patch series makes such storage > controllers compatible with larger page sizes, e.g. 16 KiB. > > Does this answer your question? Does mine answer the reason to why I am asking it? If we are sure these don't exist then please mention it in the commit log. And also more importantly the possible corruption issue you describe which could happen! Was a corruption actually observed in real life or reported!? Luis
