From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:44:52 -0400
Message-ID: <2222ce1e-caa2-e9bf-8958-7e9c7049e419@gmail.com>
References: <1494331407-2049-1-git-send-email-mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
 <1aca3793-3786-00dc-910e-920a21a1108b@gmail.com>
 <5e8e5353-e42d-0ea0-1928-7d4608a884b8@intel.com>
 <e27a148f-f0bf-8713-ceca-f37b4fb2fb88@gmail.com>
 <ce37f19d-85f7-b360-4b8f-c54cd5a2915e@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ce37f19d-85f7-b360-4b8f-c54cd5a2915e@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

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