From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mkfs: handle 4k sector devices more cleanly
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:51:56 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B4770BC.4050306@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100108174400.GA17634@infradead.org>
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:46:41AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> +extern void platform_findsizes (char *path, int fd, long long *sz, int *bsz);
>
> Can you move the prototype from libxfs/init.h to include/libxfs.h
> instead of adding it to the .c file?
sure, heh, you know - I knew that was a bad idea ;)
>> + /*
>> + * MD wants sector size set == block size to avoid switching.
>> + * Otherwise, if not specfied via command, use device sectorsize
>> + */
>> + if (ft.sectoralign || !ssflag) {
>> + if (ft.sectoralign)
>> + sectorsize = blocksize;
>> + else
>> + sectorsize = ft.sectorsize;
>
> This still confuses the heck out of me. What do you think about the
> incremental patch at the end of the mail?
yeah, that seems good.
>> if (slflag || ssflag)
>> xi.setblksize = sectorsize;
>> - else
>> - xi.setblksize = 1;
>
> So for the defaul case we now never set the sector size in the libxfs
> init. This seems safe to me, but why did we do it before? Could
> a previous user have left it set to a wrong value?
>
> Maye we should just do the xi.setblksize = sectorsize unconditionally?
ugh this stuff is messy.
let me see what sectorsize's default is...
If we take out the "1 is special" stuff I should probably chase it through
all the code.
Ok, will give this one more crack :)
Thanks,
-Eric
>
> Index: xfsprogs-dev/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfsprogs-dev.orig/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c 2010-01-08 18:33:53.619277529 +0100
> +++ xfsprogs-dev/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c 2010-01-08 18:39:37.758005711 +0100
> @@ -1561,21 +1561,32 @@ main(
> memset(&ft, 0, sizeof(ft));
> get_topology(&xi, &ft);
>
> - /*
> - * MD wants sector size set == block size to avoid switching.
> - * Otherwise, if not specfied via command, use device sectorsize
> - */
> + if (ft.sectoralign) {
> + /*
> + * Older Linux software RAID versions want the sector size
> + * to match the block size to avoid switching I/O sizes.
> + * For the legacy libdisk case we thus set the sector size to
> + * match the block size. For systems using libblkid we assume
> + * that the kernel is recent enough to not require this and
> + * ft.sectoralign will never be set.
> + */
> + sectorsize = blocksize;
> + } else if (!ssflag) {
> + /*
> + * Unless specified manually on the command line use the
> + * advertised sector size of the device.
> + */
> + sectorsize = ft.sectorsize;
> + }
> +
> if (ft.sectoralign || !ssflag) {
> - if (ft.sectoralign)
> - sectorsize = blocksize;
> - else
> - sectorsize = ft.sectorsize;
> sectorlog = libxfs_highbit32(sectorsize);
> if (loginternal) {
> lsectorsize = sectorsize;
> lsectorlog = sectorlog;
> }
> }
> +
> if (sectorsize < XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE ||
> sectorsize > XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE || sectorsize > blocksize) {
> fprintf(stderr, _("illegal sector size %d\n"), sectorsize);
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-08 17:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-08 18:25 [PATCH] mkfs: handle 4k sector devices more cleanly Eric Sandeen
2009-12-10 22:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-12-10 23:00 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-01-08 16:46 ` [PATCH V2] " Eric Sandeen
2010-01-08 17:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 17:51 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2010-01-09 2:24 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-01-09 14:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-11 18:10 ` [PATCH V3] " Eric Sandeen
2010-01-11 21:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B4770BC.4050306@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox