[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231221132236.GB26817@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:22:36 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, sagi@...mberg.me,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
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,
ming.lei@...hat.com, jaswin@...ux.ibm.com, bvanassche@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] block atomic writes
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 01:18:33PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> For SGL-capable devices that would be
>> BIO_MAX_VECS, otherwise 1.
>
> ok, but we would need to advertise that or whatever segment limit. A statx
> field just for that seems a bit inefficient in terms of space.
I'd rather not hard code BIO_MAX_VECS in the ABI, which suggest we
want to export is as a field. Network file systems also might have
their own limits for one reason or another.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists