Re: [PATCH 2/3] dm: Use blk_queue_copy_limits()

[Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Sep 18 2009 at 12:26pm -0400,
Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com> wrote:

> Use new blk_queue_copy_limits() so that invalid limits
> (max_sectors == 0) are fixed up appropriately when copied to the queue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
> Reported-by: David Strand <dpstrand@gmail.com>
> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> Cc: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
> Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/md/dm-table.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.31.work/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.31.work.orig/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> +++ linux-2.6.31.work/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> @@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ void dm_table_set_restrictions(struct dm
>  	/*
>  	 * Copy table's limits to the DM device's request_queue
>  	 */
> -	q->limits = *limits;
> +	blk_queue_copy_limits(q, limits);
> 
>  	if (limits->no_cluster)
>  		queue_flag_clear_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER, q);


How about just having 2 patches in the series and folding the above DM
change into the first patch?

Doesn't _really_ matter I guess...

Anyway, these minor points aside: I like what you've done with this
series.

Acked-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>