diff options
| author | Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de> | 2009-09-01 22:40:15 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> | 2009-09-01 22:40:15 +0200 |
| commit | c295fc05789653ef24f296299df7c5f92fe74dce (patch) | |
| tree | f1b14e69ba862d41baafbb30212e918e35ba626a | |
| parent | adda766193ea1cf3137484a9521972d080d0b7af (diff) | |
| download | kernel_samsung_tuna-c295fc05789653ef24f296299df7c5f92fe74dce.zip kernel_samsung_tuna-c295fc05789653ef24f296299df7c5f92fe74dce.tar.gz kernel_samsung_tuna-c295fc05789653ef24f296299df7c5f92fe74dce.tar.bz2 | |
block: Allow changing max_sectors_kb above the default 512
The patch "block: Use accessor functions for queue limits"
(ae03bf639a5027d27270123f5f6e3ee6a412781d) changed queue_max_sectors_store()
to use blk_queue_max_sectors() instead of directly assigning the value.
But blk_queue_max_sectors() differs a bit
1. It sets both max_sectors_kb, and max_hw_sectors_kb
2. Never allows one to change max_sectors_kb above BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS. If one
specifies a value greater then max_hw_sectors is set to that value but
max_sectors is set to BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS
I am not sure whether blk_queue_max_sectors() should be changed, as it seems
to be that way for a long time. And there may be callers dependent on that
behaviour.
This patch simply reverts to the older way of directly assigning the value to
max_sectors as it was before.
Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
| -rw-r--r-- | block/blk-sysfs.c | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c index 418d636..d3aa2aa 100644 --- a/block/blk-sysfs.c +++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ queue_max_sectors_store(struct request_queue *q, const char *page, size_t count) return -EINVAL; spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock); - blk_queue_max_sectors(q, max_sectors_kb << 1); + q->limits.max_sectors = max_sectors_kb << 1; spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock); return ret; |