Messages in this thread | | | From | KY Srinivasan <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value of STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS | Date | Thu, 16 May 2013 14:01:12 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:55 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 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()?
The check is already there (as I noted above). Look at the function: storvsc_drv_init(). If the ring size is picked incorrectly, the load is failed.
Regards,
K. Y > > regards, > dan carpenter > >
| |