Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()

All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:01:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <575BE182.5010304@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq160tgfoqr.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>

On 06/11/2016 04:22 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> writes:
>
>>> When checking a cloned request there is no need to check the overall
>>> request size; this won't have changed even when resubmitting to
>>> another queue.  Without this patch ppc64le on ibmvfc fails to boot.
>
> Why is the number of sectors in the request bigger than the queue limit?
>
Because we're checking the wrong limit.
blk_queue_get_max_sectors() is checking limits.max_sectors(), but the 
requests are already fully formed and can extend up to 
limits.max_hw_sectors().

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nï¿½rnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendï¿½rffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nï¿½rnberg)

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)

From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:01:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <575BE182.5010304@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq160tgfoqr.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>

On 06/11/2016 04:22 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> writes:
>
>>> When checking a cloned request there is no need to check the overall
>>> request size; this won't have changed even when resubmitting to
>>> another queue.  Without this patch ppc64le on ibmvfc fails to boot.
>
> Why is the number of sectors in the request bigger than the queue limit?
>
Because we're checking the wrong limit.
blk_queue_get_max_sectors() is checking limits.max_sectors(), but the 
requests are already fully formed and can extend up to 
limits.max_hw_sectors().

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

next prev parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-11 10:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-30  7:24 [PATCH] block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits() Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 13:19 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-10 13:30   ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 13:30     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 14:18     ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-11 10:05       ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 10:05         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11  2:22   ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-11 10:01     ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2016-06-11 10:01       ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 11:06       ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-11 13:10         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 13:10           ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-13  8:07           ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-06-15  1:39           ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-15  2:29             ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-15  2:32               ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-15  6:33             ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15  6:33               ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 10:03               ` Jens Axboe
2016-06-15 10:33                 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 10:33                   ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 16:34                   ` Brian King
2016-06-16 12:35                     ` Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
2016-06-16 21:59                       ` Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
2016-06-17  6:59                         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-17  6:59                           ` 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=575BE182.5010304@suse.de \
    --to=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=brking@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=snitzer@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.