[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231214161223.GA12810@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:12:23 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
kbusch@...nel.org, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
jaswin@...ux.ibm.com, bvanassche@....org,
Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] block: Add atomic write operations to
request_queue limits
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:25:38AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
<full quote deleted, please only quote what is relevant.
> > lim->dma_alignment = 511;
> > + lim->atomic_write_unit_min_sectors = 0;
> > + lim->atomic_write_unit_max_sectors = 0;
> > + lim->atomic_write_max_sectors = 0;
> > + lim->atomic_write_boundary_sectors = 0;
>
> Can we move the four into single structure and setup them in single
> API? Then cross-validation can be done in this API.
Please don't be arbitrarily different from all the other limits. What
we really should be doing is an API that updates all limits at the
same time, and I actually have code for that, I'll just need to finish
it. I do not want to block this series for it, though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists