> "Long" == Long Li writes:
Long,
Long> The problem I'm trying to solve is that, I want to have lower
Long> layer driver to setup max_sectors bigger than
Long> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS.
Capping at BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS unless a device has explicitly reported
requirements is
> "Long" == Long Li writes:
Long,
Long> The problem I'm trying to solve is that, I want to have lower
Long> layer driver to setup max_sectors bigger than
Long> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS.
Capping at BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS unless a device has explicitly reported
requirements is intentional. We have
une 6, 2016 8:42 PM
> To: Long Li <lon...@microsoft.com>
> Cc: Tom Yan <tom.t...@gmail.com>; James E.J. Bottomley
> <j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Martin K. Petersen
> <martin.peter...@oracle.com>; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.ke
une 6, 2016 8:42 PM
> To: Long Li
> Cc: Tom Yan ; James E.J. Bottomley
> ; Martin K. Petersen
> ; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: remove redundant check for
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS
>
> >>>>> "Long" ==
> "Long" == Long Li writes:
Long,
Long> The reason is that, max_sectors already has value at this point,
Long> the default value is SCSI_DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS
Long> (include/scsi/scsi_host.h). The lower layer host driver can change
Long> this value in its template.
The
> "Long" == Long Li writes:
Long,
Long> The reason is that, max_sectors already has value at this point,
Long> the default value is SCSI_DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS
Long> (include/scsi/scsi_host.h). The lower layer host driver can change
Long> this value in its template.
The LLD sets
.J. Bottomley <j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Martin K. Petersen
>> <martin.peter...@oracle.com>; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>> ker...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: remove redundant check for
>> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS
>>
>> The main point
y can use BLOCK LIMITS VPD to
> tell it to do so.
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom Yan [mailto:tom.t...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 1:41 AM
>> To: Long Li
>> Cc: James E.J. Bottomley ; Martin K. Petersen
>> ; linux-s...@vger.k
tomley <j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Martin K. Petersen
> <martin.peter...@oracle.com>; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: remove redundant check for
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS
>
> The main point there is not to check
; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: remove redundant check for
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS
>
> The main point there is not to check q->limits.max_sectors against
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, but sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks against
> S
The main point there is not to check q->limits.max_sectors against
BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, but sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks against
SD_DEF_XFER_BLOCKS et al.? `rw_max = BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS;` there is
merely the fallback when sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks does not pass the
conditions. With your patch `rw_max` can be
The main point there is not to check q->limits.max_sectors against
BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, but sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks against
SD_DEF_XFER_BLOCKS et al.? `rw_max = BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS;` there is
merely the fallback when sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks does not pass the
conditions. With your patch `rw_max` can be
q->limits.max_sectors is already checked against BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS in
__scsi_alloc_queue(), when it calls blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(). There is no
need to check it again in sd.
This change also allows a SCSI driver set an maximum sector size bigger than
BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, without returning
q->limits.max_sectors is already checked against BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS in
__scsi_alloc_queue(), when it calls blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(). There is no
need to check it again in sd.
This change also allows a SCSI driver set an maximum sector size bigger than
BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, without returning
14 matches
Mail list logo