From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: "Chauhan, Vijay" <Vijay.Chauhan@netapp.com>
Cc: "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Stankey, Robert" <Robert.Stankey@netapp.com>,
"Moger, Babu" <Babu.Moger@netapp.com>,
"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: do not artificially constrain max_sectors for stacking drivers
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:18:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120710191859.GB3831@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F200AD42A082BC4088B232D13A916A8907E5F2AA@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
On Tue, Jul 10 2012 at 3:10pm -0400,
Chauhan, Vijay <Vijay.Chauhan@netapp.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 4:27 AM, Mike Wrote:
> >As it happens, v2's changes to blk_limits_max_hw_sectors and
> >blk_queue_max_hw_sectors are not strictly required in order for existing
> >stacking drivers to have have an unconstrained max_sectors. Dropping
> >those changes also allows for consistency across both block functions.
> >
> >So I'd be happy if v1 were to be staged for 3.6. NetApp: it would be
> >great if you could confirm that v1 does in fact address the max_sectors
> >issue you reported.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Mike
>
> Mike, Thanks for the quick fix. I verified with Patch v1 and it resolves this issue.
Great, thanks for testing. I assume Jens will be OK with staging v1 of
this patch for 3.6 once he gets back from vacation.
Jens please feel free to add the following to v1's patch header:
Tested-by: Vijay Chauhan <vijay.chauhan@netapp.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-10 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-08 17:59 [PATCH] DM MULTIPATH: Allow dm to send larger request if underlying device set to larger max_sectors value Chauhan, Vijay
2012-07-09 1:01 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2012-07-09 12:34 ` Chauhan, Vijay
2012-07-09 13:00 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-07-09 13:16 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-07-09 13:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-07-09 14:14 ` [PATCH] block: do not artificially constrain max_sectors for stacking drivers Mike Snitzer
2012-07-09 14:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Mike Snitzer
2012-07-09 22:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-07-10 19:10 ` Chauhan, Vijay
2012-07-10 19:18 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2012-08-01 0:39 ` [RESEND PATCH] " Mike Snitzer
2012-08-01 8:45 ` Jens Axboe
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=20120710191859.GB3831@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=Babu.Moger@netapp.com \
--cc=Robert.Stankey@netapp.com \
--cc=Vijay.Chauhan@netapp.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).