> Much easier to address a bug in a driver when seeing this message than
> figuring it out after more elaborate hunting. Not seeing the downside
> of preserving/fixing given it is a quick limit check. *shrug*
I tend to agree - considering the check has been here for a while, I
don't know if lower
On Fri, Feb 17 2023 at 11:16P -0500,
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 12:27:02PM -0700, Uday Shankar wrote:
> > * Description:
> > *@rq may have been made based on weaker limitations of upper-level
> > queues
> > *in request stacking drivers, and it may violate the
On Thu, Feb 16 2023 at 2:27P -0500,
Uday Shankar wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 10:09:36PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I'd just remove the debug check entirely
>
> Older kernels have these checks in a separate function called
> blk_cloned_rq_check_limits, which carries the following
