* [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks
@ 2017-05-09 12:03 Mariusz Dabrowski
2017-05-09 16:04 ` Jes Sorensen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mariusz Dabrowski @ 2017-05-09 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid; +Cc: jes.sorensen, Maksymilian Kunt, Mariusz Dabrowski
From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
"Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
different than 512B.
Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
print "Sector Size".
Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
---
super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
index e13c940..147a70c 100644
--- a/super-intel.c
+++ b/super-intel.c
@@ -1473,13 +1473,16 @@ static void print_imsm_dev(struct intel_super *super,
ord & IMSM_ORD_REBUILD ? " (out-of-sync)" : "");
} else
printf(" This Slot : ?\n");
+ printf(" Sector Size : %u\n", super->sector_size);
sz = __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_high);
sz <<= 32;
sz += __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_low);
- printf(" Array Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
+ printf(" Array Size : %llu%s\n",
+ (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
human_size(sz * 512));
sz = blocks_per_member(map);
- printf(" Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
+ printf(" Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n",
+ (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
human_size(sz * 512));
printf(" Sector Offset : %llu\n",
pba_of_lba0(map));
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks
2017-05-09 12:03 [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks Mariusz Dabrowski
@ 2017-05-09 16:04 ` Jes Sorensen
2017-05-10 8:43 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jes Sorensen @ 2017-05-09 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mariusz Dabrowski, linux-raid; +Cc: Maksymilian Kunt
On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>
> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
> different than 512B.
>
> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
> print "Sector Size".
>
> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
> ---
> super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the output.
Does anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?
Jes
> diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
> index e13c940..147a70c 100644
> --- a/super-intel.c
> +++ b/super-intel.c
> @@ -1473,13 +1473,16 @@ static void print_imsm_dev(struct intel_super *super,
> ord & IMSM_ORD_REBUILD ? " (out-of-sync)" : "");
> } else
> printf(" This Slot : ?\n");
> + printf(" Sector Size : %u\n", super->sector_size);
> sz = __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_high);
> sz <<= 32;
> sz += __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_low);
> - printf(" Array Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
> + printf(" Array Size : %llu%s\n",
> + (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
> human_size(sz * 512));
> sz = blocks_per_member(map);
> - printf(" Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
> + printf(" Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n",
> + (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
> human_size(sz * 512));
> printf(" Sector Offset : %llu\n",
> pba_of_lba0(map));
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks
2017-05-09 16:04 ` Jes Sorensen
@ 2017-05-10 8:43 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
2017-05-10 15:18 ` Jes Sorensen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mariusz Dabrowski @ 2017-05-10 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jes Sorensen, linux-raid; +Cc: Maksymilian Kunt
On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>>
>> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
>> different than 512B.
>>
>> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
>> print "Sector Size".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
>> ---
>> super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the output. Does
> anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?
>
> Jes
>
Hi Jes,
some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output and we
haven't heard any complaints about that change.
Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is unchanged in
this patch.
Thanks,
Mariusz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks
2017-05-10 8:43 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
@ 2017-05-10 15:18 ` Jes Sorensen
2017-05-11 11:49 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jes Sorensen @ 2017-05-10 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mariusz Dabrowski, linux-raid; +Cc: Maksymilian Kunt
On 05/10/2017 04:43 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
> >> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
> >>
> >> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector
> size
> >> different than 512B.
> >>
> >> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size.
> Additionally
> >> print "Sector Size".
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the
> output. Does
> > anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?
> >
> > Jes
> >
>
> Hi Jes,
>
> some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output and
> we haven't heard any complaints about that change.
> Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is
> unchanged in this patch.
Hi Mariusz,
That is correct, however the policy stuff was added to the end of the
output, it didn't change the existing part. I am a little mixed on this
one, but I do agree --export should be the recommended use case for scripts.
Cheers,
Jes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks
2017-05-10 15:18 ` Jes Sorensen
@ 2017-05-11 11:49 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
2017-05-11 15:44 ` Jes Sorensen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mariusz Dabrowski @ 2017-05-11 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jes Sorensen, linux-raid; +Cc: Maksymilian Kunt
On 05/10/2017 05:18 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 04:43 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>> On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> > On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>> >> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>> >>
>> >> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
>> >> different than 512B.
>> >>
>> >> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
>> >> print "Sector Size".
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
>> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the output. Does
>> > anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?
>> >
>> > Jes
>> >
>>
>> Hi Jes,
>>
>> some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output and we
>> haven't heard any complaints about that change.
>> Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is unchanged in
>> this patch.
>
> Hi Mariusz,
>
> That is correct, however the policy stuff was added to the end of the output, it
> didn't change the existing part. I am a little mixed on this one, but I do agree
> --export should be the recommended use case for scripts.
>
> Cheers,
> Jes
Are you willing to accept this patch if no one disagrees or should I remove this
additional field and resend the patch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks
2017-05-11 11:49 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
@ 2017-05-11 15:44 ` Jes Sorensen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jes Sorensen @ 2017-05-11 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mariusz Dabrowski, linux-raid; +Cc: Maksymilian Kunt
On 05/11/2017 07:49 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 05:18 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 05/10/2017 04:43 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>> > On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>>> >> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with
>>> sector size
>>> >> different than 512B.
>>> >>
>>> >> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size.
>>> Additionally
>>> >> print "Sector Size".
>>> >>
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
>>> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> >
>>> > I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the
>>> output. Does
>>> > anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from
>>> this?
>>> >
>>> > Jes
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hi Jes,
>>>
>>> some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output
>>> and we
>>> haven't heard any complaints about that change.
>>> Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is
>>> unchanged in
>>> this patch.
>>
>> Hi Mariusz,
>>
>> That is correct, however the policy stuff was added to the end of the
>> output, it
>> didn't change the existing part. I am a little mixed on this one, but
>> I do agree
>> --export should be the recommended use case for scripts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jes
>
> Are you willing to accept this patch if no one disagrees or should I
> remove this additional field and resend the patch?
I have applied it - nobody has spoken out against it and -E is the
correct way to pull the info out.
Jes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-05-11 15:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-05-09 12:03 [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks Mariusz Dabrowski
2017-05-09 16:04 ` Jes Sorensen
2017-05-10 8:43 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
2017-05-10 15:18 ` Jes Sorensen
2017-05-11 11:49 ` Mariusz Dabrowski
2017-05-11 15:44 ` Jes Sorensen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).