Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size

Carlos Maiolino
2011-11-30T15:04:15Z

Ok, looks like we have a definition here about what mkfs should do in regards of the
lbs/pbs.

I'll be working on a patch to it.

Is there any other thing I should pay attention besides what have been discussed here?
I'll send a patch as soon as I have it :-)

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:19:27AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:38:33AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 11/29/11 11:15 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > >>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> writes:
> > >
> > > Eric> It seems that we should be checking for any alignment offsets in
> > > Eric> libxfs then, too; if there IS an offset, then perhaps 4k is the
> > > Eric> wrong answer, (perhaps there is no right answer) but if there is
> > > Eric> NO offset, 4k should be the right choice, yes?
> > >
> > > In most cases the partitioning/DM tools should give you a 0 offset. But
> > > it would a good idea to at least print a warning if lbs != pbs and
> > > offset > 0.
> >
> > Right, Dave's concern was for when the partitioning tools didn't do the
> > job, we don't want to break fs consistency guarantees...
> >
> > Dave, does checking for an offset before choosing 4k sectors seem
> > sufficient to you?
>
> Yes, especially if combined with Christoph's comments about ensure
> the "-f" flag is needed to make a filesystem on an unaligned config.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com

--
--Carlos