* [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm
@ 2004-12-21 22:36 Dave C Boutcher
2004-12-23 19:03 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave C Boutcher @ 2004-12-21 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-scsi
Description: Based on comments from Jens Axboe, remove
redundant module parm to set max sectors. This should
be set through the /dev/block/xxx/queue/max_sectors_kb
interface. This incremental patch fixes the only comments
received to the previous set of patches submitted.
Signed-off-by: Dave Boutcher <boutcher@us.ibm.com>
---
ibmvscsi.c | 2 --
1 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.10-rc3/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvscsi.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10-rc3.orig/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvscsi.c 2004-12-21 14:11:06.224966784 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.10-rc3/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvscsi.c 2004-12-21 14:11:28.323068472 -0600
@@ -103,8 +103,6 @@
MODULE_PARM_DESC(init_timeout, "Initialization timeout in seconds");
module_param_named(max_requests, max_requests, int, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_requests, "Maximum requests for this adapter");
-module_param_named(max_sectors, max_sectors, int, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_sectors, "Maximum sectors per request for this adapter");
/* ------------------------------------------------------------
* Routines for the event pool and event structs
--
Dave Boutcher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm
2004-12-21 22:36 [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm Dave C Boutcher
@ 2004-12-23 19:03 ` James Bottomley
2004-12-23 20:01 ` Dave C Boutcher
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2004-12-23 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: boutcher; +Cc: SCSI Mailing List
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 16:36 -0600, Dave C Boutcher wrote:
> Description: Based on comments from Jens Axboe, remove
> redundant module parm to set max sectors. This should
> be set through the /dev/block/xxx/queue/max_sectors_kb
> interface. This incremental patch fixes the only comments
> received to the previous set of patches submitted.
This one doesn't apply to scsi-misc-2.6, could you reroll against what's
there?
Thanks,
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm
2004-12-23 19:03 ` James Bottomley
@ 2004-12-23 20:01 ` Dave C Boutcher
2004-12-23 20:57 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave C Boutcher @ 2004-12-23 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Bottomley; +Cc: SCSI Mailing List
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 01:03:41PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 16:36 -0600, Dave C Boutcher wrote:
> > Description: Based on comments from Jens Axboe, remove
> > redundant module parm to set max sectors. This should
> > be set through the /dev/block/xxx/queue/max_sectors_kb
> > interface. This incremental patch fixes the only comments
> > received to the previous set of patches submitted.
>
> This one doesn't apply to scsi-misc-2.6, could you reroll against what's
> there?
The patches I submitted on Tuesday are incremental on top of the four
patches from November 29th. Let me know if you would like the
November 29th patches re-sent.
--
Dave Boutcher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm
2004-12-23 20:01 ` Dave C Boutcher
@ 2004-12-23 20:57 ` James Bottomley
2004-12-24 0:36 ` Dave C Boutcher
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2004-12-23 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: boutcher; +Cc: SCSI Mailing List
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 14:01 -0600, Dave C Boutcher wrote:
> The patches I submitted on Tuesday are incremental on top of the four
> patches from November 29th. Let me know if you would like the
> November 29th patches re-sent.
Actually, just the limit size of I/O requests with the two patches
rolled together (or is there nothing left of this now?)
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm
2004-12-23 20:57 ` James Bottomley
@ 2004-12-24 0:36 ` Dave C Boutcher
2004-12-31 0:04 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave C Boutcher @ 2004-12-24 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Bottomley; +Cc: SCSI Mailing List
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 02:57:15PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 14:01 -0600, Dave C Boutcher wrote:
> > The patches I submitted on Tuesday are incremental on top of the four
> > patches from November 29th. Let me know if you would like the
> > November 29th patches re-sent.
>
> Actually, just the limit size of I/O requests with the two patches
> rolled together (or is there nothing left of this now?)
I'm not sure I parse that...but in any case, one of the four patches
from November limited the size of the I/O requests based on information
from the SCSI target, with a default value in case the target doesn't
tell us. I got overly clever and made the default value a module
parameter. Jens pointed out that I was being redundant, since
there are other ways to set max sectors. The patch I submitted
on Tuesday leaves the basic function intact (setting max I/O size
based on input from the target) and just removes the redundant module
parameter.
--
Dave Boutcher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm
2004-12-24 0:36 ` Dave C Boutcher
@ 2004-12-31 0:04 ` James Bottomley
2004-12-31 17:32 ` Dave C Boutcher
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2004-12-31 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: boutcher; +Cc: SCSI Mailing List
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 18:36 -0600, Dave C Boutcher wrote:
> > Actually, just the limit size of I/O requests with the two patches
> > rolled together (or is there nothing left of this now?)
>
> I'm not sure I parse that...but in any case, one of the four patches
> from November limited the size of the I/O requests based on information
> from the SCSI target, with a default value in case the target doesn't
> tell us. I got overly clever and made the default value a module
> parameter. Jens pointed out that I was being redundant, since
> there are other ways to set max sectors. The patch I submitted
> on Tuesday leaves the basic function intact (setting max I/O size
> based on input from the target) and just removes the redundant module
> parameter.
What I mean is that after there's been argument over a patch I want an
updated diff (like the one below) with a new change log containing the
resolution, not a diff to a previous patch.
Also, in the diff below (which is why it's a good idea to do it this
way) the static parameter max_sectors now looks to be superfluous, so
you can get rid of it.
James
--- linux-2.6.10-rc1orig/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvscsi.c 2004-12-01 10:46:58.413032856 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.10-rc1/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvscsi.c 2004-12-01 10:46:34.616058720 -0600
@@ -86,8 +86,9 @@
static int max_channel = 3;
static int init_timeout = 5;
static int max_requests = 50;
+static int max_sectors = 32 * 8; /* default max I/O 32 pages */
-#define IBMVSCSI_VERSION "1.5.1"
+#define IBMVSCSI_VERSION "1.5.2"
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("IBM Virtual SCSI");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Dave Boutcher");
@@ -641,11 +644,16 @@
evt_struct->xfer_iu->mad.adapter_info.common.status);
} else {
printk("ibmvscsi: host srp version: %s, "
- "host partition %s (%d), OS %d\n",
+ "host partition %s (%d), OS %d, max io %u\n",
hostdata->madapter_info.srp_version,
hostdata->madapter_info.partition_name,
hostdata->madapter_info.partition_number,
- hostdata->madapter_info.os_type);
+ hostdata->madapter_info.os_type,
+ hostdata->madapter_info.port_max_txu[0]);
+
+ if (hostdata->madapter_info.port_max_txu[0])
+ hostdata->host->max_sectors =
+ hostdata->madapter_info.port_max_txu[0] >> 9;
}
}
@@ -1295,6 +1303,7 @@
hostdata->host = host;
hostdata->dev = dev;
atomic_set(&hostdata->request_limit, -1);
+ hostdata->host->max_sectors = max_sectors;
if (ibmvscsi_init_crq_queue(&hostdata->queue, hostdata,
max_requests) != 0) {
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm
2004-12-31 0:04 ` James Bottomley
@ 2004-12-31 17:32 ` Dave C Boutcher
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave C Boutcher @ 2004-12-31 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Bottomley; +Cc: SCSI Mailing List
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 06:04:48PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> What I mean is that after there's been argument over a patch I want an
> updated diff (like the one below) with a new change log containing the
> resolution, not a diff to a previous patch.
OK, thanks for the guidance...new patch on its way. I have a number
of subsequent patches which still apply fine (with some fuzz.) Would
you like them resubmitted to get everything back in sync?
--
Dave Boutcher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-12-31 17:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-12-21 22:36 [patch] ibmvscsi.c: remove max-sectors module parm Dave C Boutcher
2004-12-23 19:03 ` James Bottomley
2004-12-23 20:01 ` Dave C Boutcher
2004-12-23 20:57 ` James Bottomley
2004-12-24 0:36 ` Dave C Boutcher
2004-12-31 0:04 ` James Bottomley
2004-12-31 17:32 ` Dave C Boutcher
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox