Re: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value ofSTORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:37:41PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:02 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ohering@xxxxxxxx; jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx
> > 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()?

regards,
dan carpenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/