lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value of STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:37:41PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:02 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > devel@linuxdriverproject.org; ohering@suse.com; jbottomley@parallels.com;
> > hch@infradead.org; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; apw@canonical.com;
> > jasowang@redhat.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value of
> > STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:21:19AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > Increase the value of STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS to 200 requests. The
> > current
> > > ringbuffer size can support this higher value.
> > >
> >
> > The ringbuffer size is a module parameter so it's odd to talk about
> > the "current" size.
>
> While the ringbuffer size is a module parameter; there is a default value. The current size refers to the default.
> Your comment applies to the current value (of 128) as well in that it is possible for somebody to load this
> driver with a ringbuffer size that could not support the value of 128. If this is the case, we fail the load.
> This safety check continues to exist.

The issue is there in the original code, true.

Would the right fix be to add some sanity checks in module_init()?

regards,
dan carpenter



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-16 16:42    [W:0.057 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site