From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752805AbcHLQhD (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:37:03 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:34970 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752546AbcHLQhA (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:37:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:36:56 -0800 From: Kent Overstreet To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Eric Wheeler , Ming Lei , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Roesner , "4.3+" , Shaohua Li Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256 bvecs Message-ID: <20160812163656.GA13370@kmo-pixel> References: <1459914212-9330-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <20160811140253.GA2867@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160811140253.GA2867@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 07:02:53AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Please just fix bcache to not submit bios larger than BIO_MAX_PAGES for > now, until we can support such callers in general and enable common > used code to do so. Christoph, what's wrong with Ming's patch? Leaving bcache aside, just considering the block layer, do you think that patch is the wrong approach?