[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 01:02:05 -0800
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc: device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Neil@...hat.com,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, Al@...hat.com,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Lars Ellenberg <drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com>,
Philip Kelleher <pjk1939@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Ming Lin <ming.l@....samsung.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jim Paris <jim@...n.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>, drbd-user@...ts.linbit.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5 01/11] block: make generic_make_request
handle arbitrarily sized bios
On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 10:52:24AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Wouldn't it be easier to move both max_write_same_sectors and
> max_discard sectors to 64 bit (ie to type sector_t) and be done with the
> overflow?
> Seems to me this is far too much coding around self-imposed restrictions...
It's bio->bi_iter.bi_size that would have to be increased to 64 bits. Which I
suppose wouldn't actually increase the size of struct bio (when sector_t is 64
bits), since struct bvec_iter has padding right now...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists