On Thu, 03/30 11:30, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Fam Zheng writes:
>
> >>rw_max = min_not_zero(logical_to_sectors(sdp, dev_max),
> >> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS);
> >
> > Yes, it is better. Is it okay to make the change when you apply?
>
> Sure. Applied to 4.11/scsi-fi
Fam Zheng writes:
>> rw_max = min_not_zero(logical_to_sectors(sdp, dev_max),
>> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS);
>
> Yes, it is better. Is it okay to make the change when you apply?
Sure. Applied to 4.11/scsi-fixes.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
On Wed, 03/29 22:37, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Fam Zheng writes:
>
> Fam,
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > index fcfeddc..a5c7e67 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > @@ -2957,6 +2957,7 @@ static int sd_revalidate_disk(struct gendisk *d
Fam Zheng writes:
Fam,
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> index fcfeddc..a5c7e67 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> @@ -2957,6 +2957,7 @@ static int sd_revalidate_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
> rw_max = logical_to_sectors(sdp, sdkp->opt_x
Hi Fam,
[auto build test WARNING on scsi/for-next]
[also build test WARNING on v4.11-rc4 next-20170327]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Fam-Zheng/sd-Consider-max_xfer_blocks-if-op
If device reports a small max_xfer_blocks and a zero opt_xfer_blocks, we
end up using BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, which is wrong and r/w of that size
may get error.
Fixes: ca369d51b3e ("block/sd: Fix device-imposed transfer length limits")
Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
---
v2: Fix granularity mismatch. [Ma
6 matches
Mail list logo
