Re: [PATCH 04/11] block: Improvements to bounce-buffer handling

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:38 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > Since commit 23688bf4f830 ("block: ensure to split after potentially > bouncing a bio") blk_queue_bounce() is called *before* > blk_queue_split(). > This means that: > 1/ the comments blk_queue_split() about bounce buffers are >

Re: [PATCH 04/11] block: Improvements to bounce-buffer handling

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:38 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > Since commit 23688bf4f830 ("block: ensure to split after potentially > bouncing a bio") blk_queue_bounce() is called *before* > blk_queue_split(). > This means that: > 1/ the comments blk_queue_split() about bounce buffers are > irrelevant,

Re: [PATCH 04/11] block: Improvements to bounce-buffer handling

Do we want to doctor around the bio bouncing or leave it to the dma_ops like other subsystems do? These days dma_map_* is supposed to handle any memory we throw at it, even if that means using bounce buffers at that level.

Re: [PATCH 04/11] block: Improvements to bounce-buffer handling

Do we want to doctor around the bio bouncing or leave it to the dma_ops like other subsystems do? These days dma_map_* is supposed to handle any memory we throw at it, even if that means using bounce buffers at that level.

[PATCH 04/11] block: Improvements to bounce-buffer handling

Since commit 23688bf4f830 ("block: ensure to split after potentially bouncing a bio") blk_queue_bounce() is called *before* blk_queue_split(). This means that: 1/ the comments blk_queue_split() about bounce buffers are irrelevant, and 2/ a very large bio (more than BIO_MAX_PAGES) will no

[PATCH 04/11] block: Improvements to bounce-buffer handling

Since commit 23688bf4f830 ("block: ensure to split after potentially bouncing a bio") blk_queue_bounce() is called *before* blk_queue_split(). This means that: 1/ the comments blk_queue_split() about bounce buffers are irrelevant, and 2/ a very large bio (more than BIO_MAX_PAGES) will no