From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Reiser4 SCSI Bug? Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:22:38 -0700 Message-ID: <43643C7E.4080703@namesys.com> 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> <436406DF.8070104@wpi.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <436406DF.8070104@wpi.edu> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Isaac Chanin Cc: Steve Olivieri , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Alexander Zarochentcev , vs Isaac Chanin wrote: > 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. > > but you said: "In any case, BIO_MAX_PAGES is defined to be 256" Now I am confused. We should use the same macro defining our limit as the underlying layer uses. What macro is that called?