[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081203120616.GM26097@agk.fab.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:06:16 +0000
From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: mbroz@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, neilb@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix setting of max_segment_size and seg_boundary mask
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:32:00PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:42:09 +0100
> Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -314,6 +317,7 @@ void blk_queue_stack_limits(struct request_queue *t, struct request_queue *b)
> > /* zero is "infinity" */
> > t->max_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_sectors, b->max_sectors);
> > t->max_hw_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_hw_sectors, b->max_hw_sectors);
> > + t->seg_boundary_mask = min_not_zero(t->seg_boundary_mask, b->seg_boundary_mask);
> >
> > t->max_phys_segments = min(t->max_phys_segments, b->max_phys_segments);
> > t->max_hw_segments = min(t->max_hw_segments, b->max_hw_segments);
> Theoretically, blk_queue_stack_limits() better use min_not_zero
> instead of min for max_phys_segments, max_hw_segments, and
> max_segment_size?
But does zero have any valid use there?
We left those alone for now, feeling that BUG_ON() might be more appropriate.
Alasdair
--
agk@...hat.com
--
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