| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:36:53 -0400 From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Staging: zram: allow partial page operations >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes: Jeff> I don't think there's any reason the logical block size can't be Jeff> increased. For zram, so long as you don't care that the minimum Jeff> I/O size is 64k on these systems (and by you, I mean the users of Jeff> zram, like file systems, or anything using the block device Jeff> directly), then it's a fine trade-off to make. Jeff> Jens, Martin, what do you guys think about bumping the size of the Jeff> queue_limits.logical_block_size? When I wrote the code I thought 64K ought to be enough for anybody. I don't have a problem bumping it as long as people are aware of the implications bigger blocks have on the filesystems they put on top. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- 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