From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5682CC43334 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 06:03:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230113AbiGVGDs (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2022 02:03:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48322 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229739AbiGVGDr (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2022 02:03:47 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E202545DC for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 23:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 6379968BEB; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 08:03:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 08:03:42 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] block: fix max_zone_append_sectors inheritance in blk_stack_limits Message-ID: <20220722060342.GB31300@lst.de> References: <20220720142456.1414262-1-hch@lst.de> <20220720142456.1414262-3-hch@lst.de> 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) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:59:30PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > Hmmm... Given that max_zone_append_sectors should never be zero for any > zoned block device, that is OK. However, DM targets combining zoned and > non-zoned devices to create a non zoned logical drive, e.g. dm-zoned with > a regular ssd for metadata, should not have a non-zero > max_zone_append_sectors. So I am not confident this change leads to > correct limits in all cases. Good point. I think we can drop this patch, as I just need to call blk_set_stacking_limits instead of blk_set_default_limits in the btrfs code, which should sort all this out.