[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190128121407-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:14:33 -0500
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jfehlig@...e.com,
jon.grimm@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, jroedel@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-blk: Consider virtio_max_dma_size() for
maximum segment size
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:05:26AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:42:21AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Yes. But more importantly it would fix the limit for all other block
> > > drivers that set large segment sizes when running over swiotlb.
> >
> > True, so it would be something like the diff below? I havn't worked on
> > the block layer, so I don't know if that needs additional checks for
> > ->dev or anything.
>
> Looks sensible. Maybe for now we'll just do the virtio-blk case
> that triggered it, and we'll do something like this patch for the
> next merge window. We'll also need to apply the same magic to the
> DMA boundary.
So do I get an ack for this patch then?
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists