Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-200018-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:31:42 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com, bvanassche@acm.org, david@fromorbit.com,
	hare@suse.de, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com,
	anuj20.g@samsung.com, joshi.k@samsung.com, nitheshshetty@gmail.com,
	gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 01/12] block: Introduce queue limits and sysfs for
 copy-offload support
Message-ID: <20240604043142.GB28886@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 06:43:56AM +0000, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>> Also most block limits are in kb.  Not that I really know why we are
>> doing that, but is there a good reason to deviate from that scheme?
>>
> We followed discard as a reference, but we can move to kb, if that helps
> with overall readability.

I'm not really sure what is better.  Does anyone remember why we did
the _kb version?  Either way some amount of consistency would be nice.