From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mkfs: handle 4k sector devices more cleanly
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:51:56 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B4770BC.4050306@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100108174400.GA17634@infradead.org>
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:46:41AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> +extern void platform_findsizes (char *path, int fd, long long *sz, int *bsz);
>
> Can you move the prototype from libxfs/init.h to include/libxfs.h
> instead of adding it to the .c file?
sure, heh, you know - I knew that was a bad idea ;)
>> + /*
>> + * MD wants sector size set == block size to avoid switching.
>> + * Otherwise, if not specfied via command, use device sectorsize
>> + */
>> + if (ft.sectoralign || !ssflag) {
>> + if (ft.sectoralign)
>> + sectorsize = blocksize;
>> + else
>> + sectorsize = ft.sectorsize;
>
> This still confuses the heck out of me. What do you think about the
> incremental patch at the end of the mail?
yeah, that seems good.
>> if (slflag || ssflag)
>> xi.setblksize = sectorsize;
>> - else
>> - xi.setblksize = 1;
>
> So for the defaul case we now never set the sector size in the libxfs
> init. This seems safe to me, but why did we do it before? Could
> a previous user have left it set to a wrong value?
>
> Maye we should just do the xi.setblksize = sectorsize unconditionally?
ugh this stuff is messy.
let me see what sectorsize's default is...
If we take out the "1 is special" stuff I should probably chase it through
all the code.
Ok, will give this one more crack :)
Thanks,
-Eric
>
> Index: xfsprogs-dev/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfsprogs-dev.orig/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c 2010-01-08 18:33:53.619277529 +0100
> +++ xfsprogs-dev/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c 2010-01-08 18:39:37.758005711 +0100
> @@ -1561,21 +1561,32 @@ main(
> memset(&ft, 0, sizeof(ft));
> get_topology(&xi, &ft);
>
> - /*
> - * MD wants sector size set == block size to avoid switching.
> - * Otherwise, if not specfied via command, use device sectorsize
> - */
> + if (ft.sectoralign) {
> + /*
> + * Older Linux software RAID versions want the sector size
> + * to match the block size to avoid switching I/O sizes.
> + * For the legacy libdisk case we thus set the sector size to
> + * match the block size. For systems using libblkid we assume
> + * that the kernel is recent enough to not require this and
> + * ft.sectoralign will never be set.
> + */
> + sectorsize = blocksize;
> + } else if (!ssflag) {
> + /*
> + * Unless specified manually on the command line use the
> + * advertised sector size of the device.
> + */
> + sectorsize = ft.sectorsize;
> + }
> +
> if (ft.sectoralign || !ssflag) {
> - if (ft.sectoralign)
> - sectorsize = blocksize;
> - else
> - sectorsize = ft.sectorsize;
> sectorlog = libxfs_highbit32(sectorsize);
> if (loginternal) {
> lsectorsize = sectorsize;
> lsectorlog = sectorlog;
> }
> }
> +
> if (sectorsize < XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE ||
> sectorsize > XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE || sectorsize > blocksize) {
> fprintf(stderr, _("illegal sector size %d\n"), sectorsize);
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-08 17:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-08 18:25 [PATCH] mkfs: handle 4k sector devices more cleanly Eric Sandeen
2009-12-10 22:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-12-10 23:00 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-01-08 16:46 ` [PATCH V2] " Eric Sandeen
2010-01-08 17:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 17:51 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2010-01-09 2:24 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-01-09 14:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-11 18:10 ` [PATCH V3] " Eric Sandeen
2010-01-11 21:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B4770BC.4050306@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.