On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:05:03AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 6/4/24 06:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 06:43:56AM +, 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 dev
On 6/4/24 06:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 06:43:56AM +, 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
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 06:43:56AM +, 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
On 01/06/24 07:53AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 03:50:14PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
Add device limits as sysfs entries,
- copy_max_bytes (RW)
- copy_max_hw_bytes (RO)
Above limits help to split the copy payload in block layer.
copy_max_bytes: maximum tot
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 03:50:14PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> Add device limits as sysfs entries,
> - copy_max_bytes (RW)
> - copy_max_hw_bytes (RO)
>
> Above limits help to split the copy payload in block layer.
> copy_max_bytes: maximum total length of copy in single payload.
> co
On 22/05/24 10:49AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 5/21/24 07:25, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
On 20/05/24 03:42PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
+ if (max_copy_bytes & (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1))
+ return -EINVAL;
Wouldn't it be more user-friendly if thi
On 5/21/24 07:25, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
On 20/05/24 03:42PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
+ if (max_copy_bytes & (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1))
+ return -EINVAL;
Wouldn't it be more user-friendly if this check would be left out? Does any code
depe
On 20/05/24 04:33PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2024/05/20 12:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
@@ -231,10 +237,11 @@ int blk_set_default_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
{
/*
* Most defaults are set by capping the bounds in blk_validate_limits,
-* but max_user_discard_sectors is
On 20/05/24 03:42PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
+static ssize_t queue_copy_max_show(struct request_queue *q, char *page)
+{
+ return sprintf(page, "%llu\n", (unsigned long long)
+ q->limits.max_copy_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT);
+}
+
+sta
On 5/20/24 12:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
Add device limits as sysfs entries,
- copy_max_bytes (RW)
- copy_max_hw_bytes (RO)
Above limits help to split the copy payload in block layer.
copy_max_bytes: maximum total length of copy in single payload.
copy_max_hw_bytes: Reflects the de
On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
+static ssize_t queue_copy_max_show(struct request_queue *q, char *page)
+{
+ return sprintf(page, "%llu\n", (unsigned long long)
+ q->limits.max_copy_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT);
+}
+
+static ssize_t queue_copy_max_store(struct reque
On 2024/05/20 12:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> Add device limits as sysfs entries,
> - copy_max_bytes (RW)
> - copy_max_hw_bytes (RO)
>
> Above limits help to split the copy payload in block layer.
> copy_max_bytes: maximum total length of copy in single payload.
> copy_max_hw_bytes: Refl
Add device limits as sysfs entries,
- copy_max_bytes (RW)
- copy_max_hw_bytes (RO)
Above limits help to split the copy payload in block layer.
copy_max_bytes: maximum total length of copy in single payload.
copy_max_hw_bytes: Reflects the device supported maximum limit.
Signed-off
13 matches
Mail list logo
