From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: rename the bt_bdev_* buftarg fields
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:10:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250618051024.GD28260@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1ef589fb-a8c2-4b2c-a401-a1e2987d21ba@oracle.com>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 01:02:16PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 17/06/2025 11:52, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> The extra bdev_ is weird, so drop it. The maximum size is based on the
>> bdev hardware limits, so add a hw_ component instead.
>
> but the min is also based on hw limits, no?
Yes.
> I also note that we have request queue limits atomic_write_unit_max and
> atomic_write_hw_unit_max
>
> and bt_awu_max_hw is written with request queue limit atomic_write_unit_max
>
> But I don't think that this will cause confusion.
Should we switch to the request_queue names instead of the nvme
spec names here entirely?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-18 5:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-17 10:51 misc cleanups Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:51 ` [PATCH 1/7] xfs: clean up the initial read logic in xfs_readsb Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-01 14:55 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 2/7] xfs: remove the call to sync_blockdev in xfs_configure_buftarg Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 12:09 ` John Garry
2025-06-24 14:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-24 14:46 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 3/7] xfs: remove the call to bdev_validate_blocksize " Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 23:40 ` Dave Chinner
2025-06-18 5:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 4/7] xfs: refactor xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit_max Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 11:44 ` John Garry
2025-06-18 5:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18 6:28 ` John Garry
2025-06-24 14:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-24 15:03 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 5/7] xfs: rename the bt_bdev_* buftarg fields Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 12:02 ` John Garry
2025-06-18 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-06-18 6:23 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 6/7] xfs: remove the bt_bdev_file buftarg field Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 7/7] xfs: remove the bt_meta_sectorsize field in struct buftarg Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 12:15 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 12:21 ` John Garry
2025-06-18 5:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 23:51 ` Dave Chinner
2025-06-18 5:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-19 2:42 ` Dave Chinner
2025-06-24 14:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-24 23:55 ` Dave Chinner
2025-06-25 6:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18 8:09 ` kernel test robot
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-07-01 10:40 misc cleanups v2 Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-01 10:40 ` [PATCH 5/7] xfs: rename the bt_bdev_* buftarg fields Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-01 10:54 ` John Garry
2025-07-01 16:45 ` Darrick J. Wong
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=20250618051024.GD28260@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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.