xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - Don't use BLKBSZSET in xfsprogs

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE - Don't use BLKBSZSET in xfsprogs
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:20:37 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <995318092.1481.1.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 16 Jul 2001, Eric Sandeen wrote:

> On 16 Jul 2001 23:11:50 +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > 
> > > We originally used our added BLKBSZSET ioctl to set the blocksize on a 
> > > device
> > > to 512 bytes during mkfs, this was in case we inherited another blocksize
> > > from a previous filesystem (i.e. 4k from ext2).  Otherwise, some writes
> > > during mkfs.xfs time would fail.  However, those writes are now gone from
> > > mkfs.xfs, and there doesn't seem to be any other compelling reason to do 
> > > this.
> > > 
> > > At this point, our added BLKBSZSET/BLKBSZGET ioctls just make our diff
> > > from Linus' kernel that much bigger.
> > 
> > Does that mean that the can't set blocksize erro on raid controllers and
> > softraid will be eradicated?
> 
> Hm, I didn't know those errors were still out there... I thought we
> fixed all the raid controllers?  but yes, it should.

They were not, I just questioned if this is solved in some way?
Does this mean we always use one size or still switch different sizes but
in another place of the code.

> I stared at it long and hard, I'm pretty sure it's safe to do, tested it
> several ways, and Martin and Nathan concurred... so hopefully this is
> not going to break anything.  :)

If you say so ;)

Cross fingers.
Seth


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>