[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:19:50 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] IB/iser: set virt_boundary_mask in the scsi host
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 09:59:35AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Until we've sorted that out the device paramter needs to be set to
> > the smallest value supported.
>
> smallest? largest? We've been setting it to the largest value the
> device can handle (ie 2G)
Well, in general we need the smallest value supported by any ULP,
because if any ULP can't support a larger segment size, we must not
allow the IOMMU to merge it to that size. That being said I can't
really see why any RDMA ULP should limit the size given how the MRs
work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists