* [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