From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jack Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] IB/srp: Make queue size configurable Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:16:14 +0200 Message-ID: <5231E8CE.5060105@gmail.com> References: <521363EA.8080906@acm.org> <52136609.3090406@acm.org> <1378782080.3794.6.camel@feather.ornl.gov> <522F5A81.8040101@acm.org> <1378937796.6649.5.camel@haswell.thedillows.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1378937796.6649.5.camel-a7a0dvSY7KqLUyTwlgNVppKKF0rrzTr+@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Dillow Cc: Bart Van Assche , David Dillow , Roland Dreier , Vu Pham , Sebastian Riemer , linux-rdma , Konrad Grzybowski List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user >> space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However, >> the SCSI mid-layer already uses that name today to export the queue >> size. To me this looks like a good reason to use the name "can_queue" ? >> An example: >> >> $ cat /sys/class/scsi_host/host93/can_queue >> 62 > > Yes, I know it has been used before, but I'm torn between not furthering > a bad naming choice and consistency. Foolish consistency and all that... > > I really don't like "can_queue", but I'll not complain if Roland decides > to take it as-is. > > -- Hi, What the allow range for this queue size? Default cmd_per_lun and can_queue with same value makes no sense to me. Could we bump can_queue to bigger value like 512? Best Jack -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html