From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:38667 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750697AbcFANo3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-block@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:44:29 -0400
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:44:27 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"open list:DRBD DRIVER" <drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	"open list:XFS FILESYSTEM" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] block: prepare for multipage bvecs
Message-ID: <20160601134427.GA15888@infradead.org>
References: <1464615294-9946-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com>
 <20160531155348.GA24840@redhat.com>
 <CACVXFVM9FqZFkMat_4ysJ8_vFd1FFnf6Bd9sHDDoCK=v93wViQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVM9FqZFkMat_4ysJ8_vFd1FFnf6Bd9sHDDoCK=v93wViQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:38:41PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > be dm-crypt.c.  Maybe you've identified some indirect use of
> > BIO_MAX_SIZE?
> 
> I mean the recently introduced BIO_MAX_SIZE in -next tree:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c?id=4ed89c97b0706477b822ea2182827640c0cec486

The crazy bcache bios striking back once again.  I really think it's
harmful having a _MAX value and then having a minor driver
reinterpreting it and sending larger ones.  Until we can lift the
maximum limit in general nad have common code exercise it we really need
to stop bcache from sending these instead of littering the tree with
workarounds.