From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 2/2] loop: support 4k physical blocksize
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:07:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170407100714.GA28554@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a03c7c2e-9f21-5123-eae4-1001dfc0b267@suse.de>
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:52:27AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 11:38 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > On 04/07/2017 11:34 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:58:58AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >>> When generating bootable VM images certain systems (most notably
> >>> s390x) require devices with 4k blocksize. This patch implements
> >>> a new flag 'LO_FLAGS_BLOCKSIZE' which will set the physical
> >>> blocksize to that of the underlying device, and allow to change
> >>> the logical blocksize for up to the physical blocksize.
> >>
> >> Actually this UAPI flag is only for setting logical block size.
> >>
> > Hmm? No, we're setting the physical blocksize, too.
> > Or am I missing something?
> >
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/block/loop.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>> drivers/block/loop.h | 1 +
> >>> include/uapi/linux/loop.h | 3 +++
> >>> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> >>> index 81b3900..f098681 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> >>> @@ -221,7 +221,8 @@ static void __loop_update_dio(struct loop_device *lo, bool dio)
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> static int
> >>> -figure_loop_size(struct loop_device *lo, loff_t offset, loff_t sizelimit)
> >>> +figure_loop_size(struct loop_device *lo, loff_t offset, loff_t sizelimit,
> >>> + loff_t logical_blocksize)
> >>> {
> >>> loff_t size = get_size(offset, sizelimit, lo->lo_backing_file);
> >>> sector_t x = (sector_t)size;
> >>> @@ -233,6 +234,12 @@ static void __loop_update_dio(struct loop_device *lo, bool dio)
> >>> lo->lo_offset = offset;
> >>> if (lo->lo_sizelimit != sizelimit)
> >>> lo->lo_sizelimit = sizelimit;
> >>> + if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_BLOCKSIZE) {
> >>> + lo->lo_logical_blocksize = logical_blocksize;
> >>> + blk_queue_physical_block_size(lo->lo_queue, lo->lo_blocksize);
> >>> + blk_queue_logical_block_size(lo->lo_queue,
> >>> + lo->lo_logical_blocksize);
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> We can move setting physical block size into loop_set_fd(), and set
> >> 512 bytes as default logical block size in loop_set_fd() too.
> >>
> > Okay.
> >
> After thinking about it some more I'm not sure if I agree with that
> reasoning.
>
> One of the goals of this patchset is to keep compability with existing
> installations.
> If we move setting the physical blocksize into loop_set_fd() (which
> needs to be called before loop_set_status()) the physical blocksize
> would always be set.
> Which would induce a user-visible change.
>
> Hence I've formulated my patch to _not_ change the default setup if the
> new flag isn't set.
OK, better to not break current users, :-)
Thanks,
Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-07 10:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-07 6:58 [PATCHv6 0/2] loop: enable different logical blocksizes Hannes Reinecke
2017-04-07 6:58 ` [PATCHv6 1/2] loop: Remove unused 'bdev' argument from loop_set_capacity Hannes Reinecke
2017-04-07 9:37 ` Ming Lei
2017-04-07 6:58 ` [PATCHv6 2/2] loop: support 4k physical blocksize Hannes Reinecke
2017-04-07 9:34 ` Ming Lei
2017-04-07 9:38 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-04-07 9:52 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-04-07 10:07 ` Ming Lei [this message]
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=20170407100714.GA28554@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=osandov@fb.com \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox