Re: [PATCH] target: Pass through I/O topology for block backstores

2013-10-16 Thread Andy Grover
On 10/12/2013 01:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:52:53AM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: It seemed better to me to keep the munging from queue_limits values to what the target core needed in the block backstore code, and not use a block-specific structure in the

Re: [PATCH] target: Pass through I/O topology for block backstores

2013-10-12 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:52:53AM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: It seemed better to me to keep the munging from queue_limits values to what the target core needed in the block backstore code, and not use a block-specific structure in the backstore-core interface. It looks like a few includes of

[PATCH] target: Pass through I/O topology for block backstores

2013-10-11 Thread Andy Grover
In addition to block size (already implemented), passing through alignment offset, logical-to-phys block exponent, I/O granularity and optimal I/O length will allow initiators to properly handle layout on LUNs with 4K block sizes. Tested with various weird values via scsi_debug module. One thing

Re: [PATCH] target: Pass through I/O topology for block backstores

2013-10-11 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:40:06AM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: In addition to block size (already implemented), passing through alignment offset, logical-to-phys block exponent, I/O granularity and optimal I/O length will allow initiators to properly handle layout on LUNs with 4K block sizes.

Re: [PATCH] target: Pass through I/O topology for block backstores

2013-10-11 Thread Andy Grover
On 10/11/2013 11:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:40:06AM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: In addition to block size (already implemented), passing through alignment offset, logical-to-phys block exponent, I/O granularity and optimal I/O length will allow initiators to