From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:37:37 -0400 Message-ID: References: <150309002518.8999.15900049133748830764.stgit@brunhilda> <1503090353.2622.15.camel@wdc.com> <4993A297653ECB4581FA5C3C31323D195B8D825D@avsrvexchmbx2.microsemi.net> <1503092817.2622.19.camel@wdc.com> <4993A297653ECB4581FA5C3C31323D195B8DBDE4@avsrvexchmbx2.microsemi.net> <1503345191.2571.13.camel@wdc.com> <4993A297653ECB4581FA5C3C31323D195B8DBE34@avsrvexchmbx2.microsemi.net> <4993A297653ECB4581FA5C3C31323D195B8E9103@avsrvexchmbx1.microsemi.net> <1504030401.2653.43.camel@wdc.com> <4993A297653ECB4581FA5C3C31323D195B8E9143@avsrvexchmbx1.microsemi.net> <4993A297653ECB4581FA5C3C31323D195B8E9191@avsrvexchmbx1.microsemi.net> <1504045532.2653.68.camel@wdc.com> <4993A297653ECB4581FA5C3C31323D195B8E9288@avsrvexchmbx1.microsemi.net> <1504047619.2653.75.camel@wdc.com> <1504953142.5442.1.camel@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:40262 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751881AbdI1Bi4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:38:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1504953142.5442.1.camel@suse.com> (Martin Wilck's message of "Sat, 09 Sep 2017 12:32:22 +0200") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Wilck Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Bart Van Assche , "hch@infradead.org" , "viswas.g@microsemi.com" , "gerry.morong@microsemi.com" , "mahesh.rajashekhara@microsemi.com" , "POSWALD@suse.com" , "scott.benesh@microsemi.com" , "don.brace@microsemi.com" , "bader.alisaleh@microsemi.com" , "kevin.barnett@microsemi.com" , "joseph.szczypek@hpe.com" , "scott.teel@microsemi.com" , "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , justin.li Martin, > Could you please explain why you think Don's patch is wrong? User > settings being discarded because of a BLKRRPART ioctl violates the > principle of least surprise. With Don's patch, that won't happen any > more. If hardware limits change, whether they increase or decrease, the > patch will also do the Right Thing, AFAICS. Increasing hw limits will > not automatically increase the sw limit, but IMO that's actually > expected. I have been mulling over this for a while. I suggest the following... -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering