From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pAUF4FRI196639 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:04:15 -0600 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id ED06128BF4D for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:04:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CClKvLDwwQbVVBBJ for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:04:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:03:58 -0200 From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size Message-ID: <20111130150357.GA10140@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1322162451-17036-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <20111124195042.GA3671@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> <20111127010643.GU2386@dastard> <4ED2C233.8010104@sandeen.net> <20111127235051.GX2386@dastard> <4ED3B2BC.1060609@sandeen.net> <4ED51899.7000706@sandeen.net> <20111130001927.GU7046@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111130001927.GU7046@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Eric Sandeen , "Martin K. Petersen" , xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs