On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it is one problem, something like below does fix my test
>> with 4K block size.
>
> It just doesn't look very legible.
OK, I will try to make it better.
>
> Also, how could this
On 01/22/2016 07:56 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:15:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
For the case of nvme, for example, I think the max sector number is so
high that you'll never hit that anyway, and you'll only ever hit the
chunk limit. No?
The device's max transfer and
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> Yes, it is one problem, something like below does fix my test
> with 4K block size.
It just doesn't look very legible.
Also, how could this
> - goto split;
> + if (sectors)
> +
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:15:37 -0800
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>
> >> I assume that in this case it's simply that
> >>
> >> - max_sectors is some odd number in sectors (ie 6553
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:15:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For the case of nvme, for example, I think the max sector number is so
> high that you'll never hit that anyway, and you'll only ever hit the
> chunk limit. No?
The device's max transfer and chunk size are not very large, both fixed
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> I assume that in this case it's simply that
>>
>> - max_sectors is some odd number in sectors (ie 65535)
>>
>> - the block size is larger than a sector (ie 4k)
>
> Wouldn't
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> >
> > My apologies for the trouble. I trust it really is broken, but I don't
> > quite see how. The patch supposedly splits the transfer to the max size
> > the request queue say
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>
> My apologies for the trouble. I trust it really is broken, but I don't
> quite see how. The patch supposedly splits the transfer to the max size
> the request queue says it allows. How does the max allowed size end up
> an invalid multiple?
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 02:34:28PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 07:57 AM, Stefan Haberland wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >unfortunately commit e36f62042880 "block: split bios to maxpossible length"
> >breaks the DASD driver on s390. We expect the block requests to be
> >multiple
> >of 4k in size
On 01/21/2016 07:57 AM, Stefan Haberland wrote:
Hi,
unfortunately commit e36f62042880 "block: split bios to maxpossible length"
breaks the DASD driver on s390. We expect the block requests to be
multiple
of 4k in size. With the patch applied I see the requests split up in
multiple
of 512 byte a
Hi,
unfortunately commit e36f62042880 "block: split bios to maxpossible length"
breaks the DASD driver on s390. We expect the block requests to be multiple
of 4k in size. With the patch applied I see the requests split up in
multiple
of 512 byte and therefore the requests get rejected and lots
11 matches
Mail list logo
