On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 01:50:09PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 03:18:43PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > Christoph, > > > > > But max_aligned_segment also feels wrong for that. It's not really the > > > maximum alignmnet, it is the fast path alignment. Maybe something like > > > fast_segment_granularity or nosplit_segment_granularity? > > > > Maybe just segment_granularity to match the other granularities we have? > > I'm not sure I like granularity for this limit. That sounds like it > defines segments to be sized to some multiple of that value, but it's > perfectly fine to use smaller segments. I guess I stuck too much to nvme terminology where those boundaries are called granularity. We also do that for the discard granularity. Maye it should be boundary?
