On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:37:41PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:02 AM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value of > > STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:21:19AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > > Increase the value of STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS to 200 requests. The > > current > > > ringbuffer size can support this higher value. > > > > > > > The ringbuffer size is a module parameter so it's odd to talk about > > the "current" size. > > While the ringbuffer size is a module parameter; there is a default value. > The current size refers to the default. > Your comment applies to the current value (of 128) as well in that it is > possible for somebody to load this > driver with a ringbuffer size that could not support the value of 128. If > this is the case, we fail the load. > This safety check continues to exist.
The issue is there in the original code, true. Would the right fix be to add some sanity checks in module_init()? regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
