linux-kernel - Re: virtio-scsi spec (was Re: [PATCH] Add virtio-scsi to the virtio spec)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ED73F90.5050603@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:49:20 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: virtio-scsi spec (was Re: [PATCH] Add virtio-scsi to the virtio
 spec)

On 12/01/2011 10:52 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>>
>>> I would like to have the other request_queue limitations exposed
>>> here, too.
>>> Most notably we're missing the maximum size of an individual segment
>>> and the maximum size of the overall I/O request.
>>
>> The virtio transport does not put any limit, as far as I know.
>>
> Virtio doesn't, but the underlying device/driver might.
> And if we don't expose these values we cannot format the request correctly.

These limits should be per target/LUN, so it seems like material for 
another controlq command when the need arises.  For now, I'd really 
prefer to have the spec match the implementation (plus a few SAM 
bogosities).

Paolo
--
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/