From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] xfs: remove the bt_meta_sectorsize field in struct buftarg
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:55:28 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aFs68CkT5zQZBeSX@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250624141117.GF24420@lst.de>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 04:11:17PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 12:42:39PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > The external log device can have a different sector size to
> > > > the rest of the filesystem. This series looks like it removes the
> > > > ability to validate that the log device sector size in teh
> > > > superblock is valid for the backing device....
> > >
> > > I don't follow. Do you mean it remove the future possibility to do this?
> >
> > No, I mean that this:
> >
> > # mkfs.xfs -l sectsize=512,logdev=/dev/nvme1n1 -d sectsize=4k .... /dev/nvme0n1
> >
> > is an valid filesystem configuration and has been for a long, long
> > time. i.e. the logdev does not have to have the same physical sector
> > size support as the data device.
>
> Sure, and I've never disagreed. But you'd not explained how that is
> relevant for this patch. The bt_meta_sectorsize is only used for
> asserting the alignment of cached buffers, and we place no buffers
> (cached or uncached) on the log device ever.
Again: I am not talking about the bt_meta_sectorsize removal being a
problem!
I will repeat it once more: this patchset removes the check that
guarantees the the underlying block device has a sector size that is
valid for the sector size the filesystem devices are configured to
use. That is not acceptible - a 512 byte sector filesystem device
must not be able to mount on a hard 4kB sector device because the
moment we do a 512 byte aligned IO to the log device, the bdev will
give an EIO error and we'll shut down the filesystem.
We check for sector size mismatches at device open time so we don't
get into this nasty situation. You are removing those sector size
checks in this patch set. This is an obvious functional regression,
and that is the part of this change that I'm NACKing.
Christoph, I explained this in the email you are replying to, and
you have simply ignored it all. Please at least read the entire
email before you respond this time!
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-24 23:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-17 10:51 misc cleanups Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:51 ` [PATCH 1/7] xfs: clean up the initial read logic in xfs_readsb Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-01 14:55 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 2/7] xfs: remove the call to sync_blockdev in xfs_configure_buftarg Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 12:09 ` John Garry
2025-06-24 14:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-24 14:46 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 3/7] xfs: remove the call to bdev_validate_blocksize " Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 23:40 ` Dave Chinner
2025-06-18 5:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 4/7] xfs: refactor xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit_max Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 11:44 ` John Garry
2025-06-18 5:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18 6:28 ` John Garry
2025-06-24 14:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-24 15:03 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 5/7] xfs: rename the bt_bdev_* buftarg fields Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 12:02 ` John Garry
2025-06-18 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18 6:23 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 6/7] xfs: remove the bt_bdev_file buftarg field Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:52 ` [PATCH 7/7] xfs: remove the bt_meta_sectorsize field in struct buftarg Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 12:15 ` John Garry
2025-06-17 12:21 ` John Garry
2025-06-18 5:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 23:51 ` Dave Chinner
2025-06-18 5:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-19 2:42 ` Dave Chinner
2025-06-24 14:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-24 23:55 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2025-06-25 6:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18 8:09 ` kernel test robot
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-07-01 10:40 misc cleanups v2 Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-01 10:40 ` [PATCH 7/7] xfs: remove the bt_meta_sectorsize field in struct buftarg Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-01 16:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-07-01 22:55 ` Dave Chinner
2025-07-03 13:44 ` 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=aFs68CkT5zQZBeSX@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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.