From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Yao Sang <sangyao@kylinos.cn>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] block, nvme: use lower-level limit helpers for namespace heads
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 10:13:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817081355.GD21461@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260806024658.4193386-5-sangyao@kylinos.cn>
On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 10:46:58AM +0800, Yao Sang wrote:
> An NVMe namespace head and each path refer to the same namespace.
> queue_limits_stack_bdev() treats the path as a bottom-device range and
> applies all of blk_stack_limits(), including topology rules and start-based
> atomic write checks. These mapped-device rules should not be used when
> updating the namespace head.
>
> Make blk_stack_path_limits() and the existing
> blk_stack_atomic_writes_limits() public when adding their first caller
> outside the block layer. Keep the existing names and parameter types.
I'd move the making public including the kerneldoc and export into
the patches adding them. Much better than hiding that in nvme patches.
> +static void nvme_apply_ns_head_identify_limits(struct queue_limits *lim,
> + const struct queue_limits *ns_lim)
Nothing in here feels nvme specific. I wonder how much of this
should be in common code, and if that would be useful to John's
scsi multipath work?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-06 2:46 [PATCH v2 0/4] block/nvme: split path limits for namespace heads Yao Sang
2026-08-06 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] nvme: factor namespace-head queue-limit update Yao Sang
2026-08-17 8:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-08-06 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] block: factor block size and alignment handling out of blk_stack_limits Yao Sang
2026-08-17 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-08-06 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] block: factor out path limit stacking Yao Sang
2026-08-17 8:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-08-06 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] block, nvme: use lower-level limit helpers for namespace heads Yao Sang
2026-08-17 8:13 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2026-08-10 8:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] block/nvme: split path limits " Yao Sang
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=20260817081355.GD21461@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=sangyao@kylinos.cn \
/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