This kills the refill limit entirely.

In D23948#526385, @gallatin wrote:

I get it, but that (totally arbitrary) limit is a pet peeve of mine. Its one of those things that you follow up several levels of code to an "XXX" comment and an arbitrary value. Its like reading a mystery novel and finding the butler really did do it.

And, to be honest, you already have the sysctl, If the user already has to touch something for decent performance, let's just have him set the budget to 65535 rather than making the running code even more complex.

In D23943#526402, @erj wrote:

One driver that is subject to the above scenario is the ixl driver.

Does that mean you also tested this patch with the ixl driver? I didn't see it mentioned in the "Test Plan" notes.

In D23947#526398, @erj wrote:

I think this looks okay, but I don't think it'll apply to the Intel drivers, right?

In D23948#526345, @gallatin wrote:

Why not just remove the limit, rather than making things even more complex?

In D23946#526363, @gallatin wrote:

Funny how the comment right above the assert calls it out as bogus..

In D23945#526265, @avg wrote:

LGTM.
I assume that a change to vmxnet3 that takes advantage of this improvement is coming.

Looks good to me.

I have updated bug 242890 to include the rationale for enabling (and also modifying) the #ifdef notyet RSS code when converting the driver to iflib, and also raised the question of whether this same issue exists for the bnxt driver.

In D19140#411495, @rozhuk.im-gmail.com wrote:

Not sure that this works.
I try this on 11.2 and on Hyper-V gen1 system stick at ldelf loading stage on boot from zfs root.

Introduced local char * buffer pointer to avoid casts on output buffer pointer updates

In D19140#409631, @tsoome wrote:

In D19140#409630, @pkelsey wrote:

In D19140#409629, @tsoome wrote:

The reason why I am asking is, I am trying to understand if we actually *can* get into the situation with overrun, I got the impression the zfs on disk format should keep things sector aligned, but it really is easy to get confused there... And it does feel safer if we do have proper checks in place.

If the zfs on-disk format keeps things sector-aligned / sector-multiple, then why was vdev_read complicated with code to handle non-sector aligned / non-sector multiple reads to begin with?

Yea, you are right:)

In D19140#409629, @tsoome wrote:

The reason why I am asking is, I am trying to understand if we actually *can* get into the situation with overrun, I got the impression the zfs on disk format should keep things sector aligned, but it really is easy to get confused there... And it does feel safer if we do have proper checks in place.

In D19140#409448, @tsoome wrote:

I have two questions:

1. how was it tested - was there some corruption case?

In D19124#409229, @kristof wrote:

I have no objections to the patch, but I don't know enough about HFSC to meaningfully review this, I'm afraid.

Added ifname parameter to getifflags(), which now uses that instead of the global name var.

In D18760#400670, @shurd wrote:

Looks good, only a tiny nitpick on the fail label.