On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user >> space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However, >> the SCSI mid-layer already uses that name today to export the queue >> size. To me this looks like a good reason to use the name "can_queue" ? >> An example: >> >> $ cat /sys/class/scsi_host/host93/can_queue >> 62 > > Yes, I know it has been used before, but I'm torn between not furthering > a bad naming choice and consistency. Foolish consistency and all that... > > I really don't like "can_queue", but I'll not complain if Roland decides > to take it as-is. > > --
Hi, What the allow range for this queue size? Default cmd_per_lun and can_queue with same value makes no sense to me. Could we bump can_queue to bigger value like 512? Best Jack -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
