On 09/12/13 18:16, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user
space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However,
the SCSI mid-layer already uses that name today to export the queue
size. To me this looks like a good reason to use the name "can_queue" ?
An example:
$ cat /sys/class/scsi_host/host93/can_queue
62
Yes, I know it has been used before, but I'm torn between not furthering
a bad naming choice and consistency. Foolish consistency and all that...
I really don't like "can_queue", but I'll not complain if Roland decides
to take it as-is.
What the allow range for this queue size?
Default cmd_per_lun and can_queue with same value makes no sense to me.
Could we bump can_queue to bigger value like 512?
Increasing the default value is only necessary when using a hard disk
array at the target side. When using a single hard disk or an SSD at the
target side the default value is fine.
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
