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 o8GIbYZE009360 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:37:34 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 3D8097C701 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (64-131-60-146.usfamily.net [64.131.60.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id MOgNrjdawcFAcaQI for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberator.sandeen.net (liberator.sandeen.net [10.0.0.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434354A8B9EA for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4C92641F.7080504@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:23 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: sector size warning at mount time 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: xfs-oss On ppc64 I'm tripping this warning: if (verbose && (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / BITS_PER_LONG) > sectorsize) { printk(KERN_WARNING "XFS: %u byte sectors in use on device %s. " "This is suboptimal; %u or greater is ideal.\n", sectorsize, XFS_BUFTARG_NAME(btp), (unsigned int)PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / BITS_PER_LONG); } and it's telling me I should have 1024-byte sectors... If the kernel is going to complain at mount, should we get it right at mkfs time? I'm not even quite sure why it's recommending this? Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs