From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mke2fs: account for physical as well as logical sector size Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:23:30 -0600 Message-ID: <4B71E062.9000203@redhat.com> References: <4B7090B7.4060708@redhat.com> <4B70914B.3000102@redhat.com> <20100209222155.GB739@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext4 development To: tytso@mit.edu Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28491 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751987Ab0BIWXg (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:23:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100209222155.GB739@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: tytso@mit.edu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:33:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Some devices, notably 4k sector drives, may have a 512 logical >> sector size, mapped onto a 4k physical sector size. >> >> When mke2fs is ratcheting down the blocksize for small filesystems, >> or when a blocksize is specified on the commandline, we should not >> willingly go below the physical sector size of the device. >> >> When a blocksize is specified, we -must- not go below >> the logical sector size of the device. >> >> Add a new library function, ext2fs_get_device_phys_sectsize() >> to get the physical sector size if possible, and adjust the >> logic in mke2fs to enforce the above rules. > > Was this something you think is worth trying to slip into 1.41.10? > > Just checking... my default is to defer this unless you think its > especially important. > > - Ted I'm inclined to defer it. I can get it in as a patch if we need to. I'd meant to send it earlier but well, you know ... ;) Thanks, -Eric