[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1c9b3db6-3443-5580-08f2-42520d6a3318@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:42:39 +0200
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Christian Löhle <CLoehle@...erstone.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
"vincent.whitchurch@...s.com" <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mmc: Improve block layer requeueing behavior
On 21/11/22 21:14, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/21/22 00:25, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 18/11/22 19:27, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 11/18/22 02:47, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>> Does anyone know why the block layer does not support
>>>> (max_hw_sectors << 9) < PAGE_SIZE ?
>>>
>>> Does this mean that the following patch series would not only be
>>> useful for UFS but also for MMC? "[PATCH 00/10] Support DMA segments
>>> smaller than the page size"
>>> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20221019222324.362705-1-bvanassche@acm.org/).
>>
>> That patchset still does not allow max_hw_sectors = 1 which is
>> what Christian's case needs.
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Why would that patch series not support max_hw_sectors = 1? What am I overlooking?
blk_queue_max_hw_sectors() does not allow it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists