On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:14:33PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:05:26AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:42:21AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > Yes. But more importantly it would fix the limit for all other block > > > > drivers that set large segment sizes when running over swiotlb. > > > > > > True, so it would be something like the diff below? I havn't worked on > > > the block layer, so I don't know if that needs additional checks for > > > ->dev or anything. > > > > Looks sensible. Maybe for now we'll just do the virtio-blk case > > that triggered it, and we'll do something like this patch for the > > next merge window. We'll also need to apply the same magic to the > > DMA boundary. > > So do I get an ack for this patch then? I'll wait for a resend of the series to review the whole thing. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
