On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:31:24AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:12:28PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > drbd is the only user of BIO_MAX_SIZE, so use BIO_MAX_PAGES
> > instead.
>
> That whole code block looks completely bogus to me, although your patch
> doesn't make it any worse.
>
> I/O size for a network protocol shouldn't dependend on the number of
> vectors in a kernel internal structure.
That's correct. But we needed some limit there.
Initially, up until I changed it like six years ago iirc,
the receiving side would receive into a single bio.
So limiting us to what a single bio could usually handle
seemed like a good idea at the time.
Today, we should be able to handle 128 MiB easily,
maybe more. But that would require a protocol bump
to stay backwards compatible.
The part about "architecture not supported",
if our limit (1 MiB) is bigger than the "system" limit:
Never met that in real life. Probably not even possible.
Just a paranoia on my side: what if.
If that would have happened somewhere,
on some strange architecture or configuration,
I wanted to know about that.
Best way: don't even compile.
> Well, getting rid of BIO_MAX_SIZE is worth it, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Thanks,
Lars Ellenberg
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
