[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240604043142.GB28886@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:31:42 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, bvanassche@....org, david@...morbit.com,
hare@...e.de, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
anuj20.g@...sung.com, joshi.k@...sung.com, nitheshshetty@...il.com,
gost.dev@...sung.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 01/12] block: Introduce queue limits and sysfs for
copy-offload support
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 06:43:56AM +0000, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>> Also most block limits are in kb. Not that I really know why we are
>> doing that, but is there a good reason to deviate from that scheme?
>>
> We followed discard as a reference, but we can move to kb, if that helps
> with overall readability.
I'm not really sure what is better. Does anyone remember why we did
the _kb version? Either way some amount of consistency would be nice.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists