From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE547F4E for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 00:41:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6842AC005 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id I7Iuzv2cABCxLk3e (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 22:41:42 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2, RFC] xfsprogs: try to handle mkfs of a file on 4k sector device Message-ID: <20140528054142.GC13166@infradead.org> References: <53852A05.5040006@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53852A05.5040006@redhat.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss > We can modify platform_findsizes() to use the fsgeom call to get the > "sector size" which should be used here, and warn that mismatches > might exist if it fails. > > This does mean there'll be a new warning emitted on fs images hosted > on non-xfs filesystems; I'm not really quite sure it's worth it, > hence the RFC nature of this lightly tested 2-patch series... Might be time to introduce some generic VFS-level ioctl for the sector size and dio alignment. Any beer or chocolate that could motivate you to get this done? :) Also it would be nice to have a test case that exercises this new code. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs