[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190608081400.GA19573@lst.de>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 10:14:00 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>
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,
"PDL,MEGARAIDLINUX" <megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com>,
PDL-MPT-FUSIONLINUX <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 10/13] megaraid_sas: set virt_boundary_mask in the scsi
host
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 09:07:27PM +0530, Kashyap Desai wrote:
> Hi Christoph, Changes for <megaraid_sas> and <mpt3sas> looks good. We want
> to confirm few sanity before ACK. BTW, what benefit we will see moving
> virt_boundry setting to SCSI mid layer ? Is it just modular approach OR any
> functional fix ?
The big difference is that virt_boundary now also changes the
max_segment_size, and this ensures that this limit is also communicated
to the DMA mapping layer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists