From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5339A14F70 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 07:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756195079; cv=none; b=YwWgnjV60y0u70NlKiIXGEfvYzvOS2gzhCLfi9y19Qq81E2GYzeyF3+1G5QlQKecDDioeWy/d92Gxd83al+28FBT64jKsE8CXlWTcp0OOr+ru9oeweiyt0UbMKkzRwr3/M628SvGLUVOVyE9eLElhBPA99fci80n2jsQVlSz5KM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756195079; c=relaxed/simple; bh=l1UHK+CP86ubIiPrRNgBCXDEEoQ4KaXhIZYLMzVW7I8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=R6oj3GcbvdUIPE/pE0Lazb8XrdwgyA69H1QQhHcD1oURMIV6fmVINTlRba2RBW8s0LrG60xyKyUjWLlDD6Z0RJUEFd356S2x68M7ssn9as0f9TN2p1pnZJT7nuzanReJnzDWXMZuZdJ0JQmdMFUy+idpyRHpzst7Nn4CanxjsPU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=Iy3KzVUs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="Iy3KzVUs" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=cFsV8hCnRcTrUySGzP7bjM5svSuddtMIBBDx2iW63Qw=; b=Iy3KzVUs/jEPqY4prmr94fvTmf 8Ca76E/ietBfXj5de6ps0MESJCLj1gRmiDsMRqavY7X65u8G4bjjVrp1TYY3/q2cCaMhY4M3tYoSf zQEOxl+vzyXutt+6EcZa/LSNbPEO4z9xDmtRqsyMAecrGNDZ9eAgrBYQ+BmwJD6AX6X3Si71OUqUe TOtko7P+Uat9OqR4zi9IBpq/KKaK+55z9keZsRdMW/NAkC4dXfNUzx0VETMwl+cXUQHYeHIRsMb8/ 96TTqtYLm2aOhtLqrFBuX5sx77jobck5iXxoBORiwnwOD6kFPcvj36pfm7M8GSMAuh9DvpVFYbA4a Jvda/Qww==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uqoZ2-0000000AvJF-1QQg; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 07:57:56 +0000 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:57:56 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Keith Busch Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Christoph Hellwig , Keith Busch , axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ming.lei@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: rename min_segment_size Message-ID: References: <20250822171038.1847867-1-kbusch@meta.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 01:50:09PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 03:18:43PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > Christoph, > > > > > But max_aligned_segment also feels wrong for that. It's not really the > > > maximum alignmnet, it is the fast path alignment. Maybe something like > > > fast_segment_granularity or nosplit_segment_granularity? > > > > Maybe just segment_granularity to match the other granularities we have? > > I'm not sure I like granularity for this limit. That sounds like it > defines segments to be sized to some multiple of that value, but it's > perfectly fine to use smaller segments. I guess I stuck too much to nvme terminology where those boundaries are called granularity. We also do that for the discard granularity. Maye it should be boundary?