From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alasdair G Kergon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dm table: do not allow queue limits that will exceed hardware limits Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20120918114022.GA17356@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> References: <20120914204133.GA376@redhat.com> <213748621.1049831.1347911069189.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <213748621.1049831.1347911069189.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: David Jeffery Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, Mike Snitzer List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:44:29PM -0400, David Jeffery wrote: > @@ -2425,6 +2425,15 @@ struct dm_table *dm_swap_table(struct mapped_device *md, struct dm_table *table) > + if (limits.max_sectors == UINT_MAX) Specifically, I don't want dm.c to be peering directly into limits. It just called calculate_queue_limits() above that. Why is calculate_queue_limits getting the limits wrong? Alasdair