xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector s

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:19:27 +1100
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4ED51899.7000706@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1322162451-17036-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111124195042.GA3671@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111127010643.GU2386@dastard> <4ED2C233.8010104@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20111127235051.GX2386@dastard> <yq1vcq4grgi.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4ED3B2BC.1060609@xxxxxxxxxxx> <yq1r50qhmte.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4ED51899.7000706@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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