[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH v2] dm: add topology support

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com> writes:

Mike> So the question: is _not_ using the blk_queue_*() setters
Mike> perfectly fine?  Given that DM has always _not_ used them the
Mike> quick answer is "seems fine".

Mike> But I need to dig a bit more to understand if the additional logic
Mike> in the blk_queue_*() setters is something DM shouldn't be
Mike> circumventing.

The original intent was that drivers like DM and MD would seed their
limits using the blk_queue* calls before adding any component devices.
blk_stack_limits() would then scale accordingly for every new device

Is there any reason in particular that this approach wouldn't work for
DM?  I.e. set defaults ahead of time instead of doing it upon table
completion using check_for_valid_limits()?

Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]