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
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
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
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.
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
5 matches
Mail list logo