From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9770E1DDE3 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 74E8868B05; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:40:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:40:34 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: Christoph Hellwig , marcan@marcan.st, sven@svenpeter.dev, kbusch@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, james.smart@broadcom.com, alyssa@rosenzweig.io, asahi@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, kch@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: don't set a virt_boundary unless needed Message-ID: <20231221124034.GA21682@lst.de> References: <20231221084853.1175482-1-hch@lst.de> <155ec506-ede8-42c7-95f7-e8be32800a8d@grimberg.me> <20231221121746.GA17956@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: asahi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:32:35PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > Exactly because its odd. Unless there is any benefit of using sgls in > admin commands lets not flag it per transport. The other transports always and unconditionally use SGLs anyway. With the virt boundary we're just adding extra checks to fail certain passthrough admin commands (the kernel will never generate those cases).