Re: virtio_blk: fix defaults for max_hw_sectors and max_segment_size

[Mike Snitzer]

On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at  4:53pm -0500,
Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 11/26/2014 02:51 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > 
> > But while you're here, I wouldn't mind getting your take on virtio-blk
> > setting max_hw_sectors to -1U.
> > 
> > As I said in my original reply to mst: it only makes sense to set a
> > really high initial upper bound like that in a driver if that driver
> > goes on to stack an underlying device's limit.
> 
> -1U should just work, IMHO, there's no reason we should need to cap it
> at some synthetic value.  That said, it seems it should be one of
> those parameters that should be negotiated up and set appropriately. 

I'm saying set it to the underlying device's value for max_hw_sectors --
not some synthetic value.  So I think we're saying the same thing.

But it isn't immediately clear (to me) how that benefits virtio-blk
users (obviously they are getting by today).  So until that is pinned
down I imagine nobody will care to extend the virtio-blk protocol to
allow stacking max_hw_sectors and max_sectors up.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/