From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Isaac Chanin Subject: Re: Reiser4 SCSI Bug? Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:33:51 -0400 Message-ID: <436406DF.8070104@wpi.edu> References: <2066.130.215.239.65.1130521750.squirrel@webmail.WPI.EDU> <37550.130.215.239.65.1130545649.squirrel@webmail.WPI.EDU> <43639DFA.1020107@namesys.com> <43640228.7080807@wpi.edu> <4364033C.5010200@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <4364033C.5010200@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: Steve Olivieri , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Alexander Zarochentcev , vs Hans Reiser wrote: > > It should be not 256, but BIO_MAX_PAGES, yes? Defining limits in two > places is bad, yes? > > Yeah, I think the code is running into two different limits here. Reiser4 wants it to be nr, but limits it to BIO_MAX_PAGES. However, apparently, the BIO_MAX_PAGES limit does not take into consideration the underlying 256 limit imposed by bio_alloc. I'm not quite sure if having the two different limits is a bad thing in this case, unless BIO_MAX_PAGES can be made to (or is supposed to, and there's a bug) take into account the 256 limit. I suppose the other solution is to not use bio_alloc et al due to the 256 limit, and find another method that allows values as large as BIO_MAX_PAGES, under the current implementation, will grow to.