From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUG: nr_phys_segments cannot be less than nr_hw_segments
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:58:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081002165857.GL19428@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1222959814.3222.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, Oct 02 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> The bug would appear to be that we sometimes only look at q->max_sectors
> when deciding on mergability. Either we have to insist on max_sectors
> <= hw_max_sectors, or we have to start using min(q->max_sectors,
> q->max_hw_sectors) for this.
q->max_sectors MUST always be <= q->max_hw_sectors, otherwise we could
be sending down requests that are too large for the device to handle. So
that condition would be a big bug. The sysfs interface checks for this,
and blk_queue_max_sectors() makes sure that is true as well.
The fixes proposed still look weird. There is no phys vs hw segment
constraints, the request must adhere to the limits set by both. It's
mostly a moot point anyway, as 2.6.28 will get rid of the hw accounting
anyway.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-02 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-02 14:29 [PATCH] BUG: nr_phys_segments cannot be less than nr_hw_segments Nikanth Karthikesan
2008-10-02 15:03 ` James Bottomley
2008-10-02 16:58 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-10-02 17:12 ` James Bottomley
2008-10-02 17:13 ` Jens Axboe
2008-10-03 5:28 ` Nikanth Karthikesan
2008-10-06 17:24 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-10-10 12:03 ` Jens Axboe
2008-10-10 12:32 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-10-10 12:37 ` Jens Axboe
2008-10-10 12:49 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-10-02 15:05 ` Nikanth Karthikesan
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=20081002165857.GL19428@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=knikanth@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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