[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190129073839.GB4087@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:38:39 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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 12:14:33PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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?
I'll wait for a resend of the series to review the whole thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists