Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:38:39 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, jfehlig@suse.com,
        jon.grimm@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, jroedel@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-blk: Consider virtio_max_dma_size() for
 maximum segment size
Message-ID: <20190129073839.GB4087@lst.de>
References: <20190123163049.24863-1-joro@8bytes.org> <20190123163049.24863-6-joro@8bytes.org> <20190123213139.GD9032@lst.de> <20190124084011.GJ32526@8bytes.org> <20190124084221.GB19441@lst.de> <20190124095150.GL32526@8bytes.org> <20190128080526.GA3874@lst.de> <20190128121407-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190128121407-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:14:33PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:05:26AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:42:21AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Yes.  But more importantly it would fix the limit for all other block
> > > > drivers that set large segment sizes when running over swiotlb.
> > > 
> > > True, so it would be something like the diff below? I havn't worked on
> > > the block layer, so I don't know if that needs additional checks for
> > > ->dev or anything.
> > 
> > Looks sensible.  Maybe for now we'll just do the virtio-blk case
> > that triggered it, and we'll do something like this patch for the
> > next merge window.  We'll also need to apply the same magic to the
> > DMA boundary.
> 
> So do I get an ack for this patch then?

I'll wait for a resend of the series to review the whole thing.