Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "sg_all".
Did you mean:
s_all
2010 Sep 02
2
blk_rq_check_limits errors
...I haven''t seen that before, but if I should guess, I would guess that dm-* has
a larger queue than your underlying block device. If that is with your DDN
storage, can you verify if all those devices are have max_sec_kb tuned to
maximum?
Also, does that come up with 1.8.4 only? (I have SG_ALL in my mind which was
increased from 255 to 256, which might not be supported by all scsi host
adapters).
Cheers,
Bernd
2007 Jan 02
0
[PATCH 1/4] add scsi-target and IO_CMD_EPOLL_WAIT patches
...{
++ &class_device_attr_system_id,
++ &class_device_attr_partition_number,
++ &class_device_attr_unit_address,
++ NULL,
++};
++
++static struct scsi_host_template ibmvstgt_sht = {
++ .name = TGT_NAME,
++ .module = THIS_MODULE,
++ .can_queue = INITIAL_SRP_LIMIT,
++ .sg_tablesize = SG_ALL,
++ .use_clustering = DISABLE_CLUSTERING,
++ .max_sectors = DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS,
++ .transfer_response = ibmvstgt_cmd_done,
++ .transfer_data = ibmvstgt_transfer_data,
++ .eh_abort_handler = ibmvstgt_eh_abort_handler,
++ .tsk_mgmt_response = ibmvstgt_tsk_mgmt_response,
++ .shost_attrs = ibmvstg...