From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
axboe@fb.com, ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] block: force an unlimited segment size on queues with a virt boundary
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:11:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190723161152.GA1655@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1563896932.3609.15.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:48:52AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
> index 2ae348c101a0..46a95536f3bd 100644
> --- a/block/blk-settings.c
> +++ b/block/blk-settings.c
> @@ -752,7 +752,8 @@ void blk_queue_virt_boundary(struct request_queue *q, unsigned long mask)
> * page (which might not be idential to the Linux PAGE_SIZE). Because
> * of that they are not limited by our notion of "segment size".
> */
> - q->limits.max_segment_size = UINT_MAX;
> + if (mask != 0 && q->limits.max_segment_size == BLK_MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE)
> + q->limits.max_segment_size = UINT_MAX;
The first check makes sense, defintively safer than leaving it to the
caller. The second one is wrong - we need to force an unlimited segment
size because we can't account for it for the virt_boundary merges. And
the comment just above explains why that is safe.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-23 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-21 7:01 fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v3 Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 7:01 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 8:05 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-21 7:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: force an unlimited segment size on queues with a virt boundary Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-23 15:48 ` James Bottomley
2019-07-23 16:11 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-05-21 7:01 ` [PATCH 3/4] block: remove the segment size check in bio_will_gap Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 7:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] block: remove the bi_seg_{front,back}_size fields in struct bio Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 8:06 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-21 12:47 ` fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v3 Jens Axboe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-05-16 8:40 fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: force an unlimited segment size on queues with a virt boundary Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190723161152.GA1655@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.