On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:23:19 -0500
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (You can probably mkfs w/ an explicit 512 sector size, and confirm
> that 512-byte DIOs work again)
Hi Eric, yep, confirmed that doing mkfs.xfs -b size=1024 (used 1024
instead of 512 so that 240 would run) makes 091, 240, and 268 work
without my changes.
> bleah, perhaps that was a mistake - or perhaps we need to fix
> kernelspace to prefer physical-size IOs, but allow logical-size if a
> DIO requests it.
ext4 and btrfs did work, so perhaps that is what they are doing, I
have not looked yet.
[... test 240]
> >>>> -logical_block_size=`blockdev --getss $TEST_DEV`
> >>>> +logical_block_size=`blockdev --getpbsz $TEST_DEV`
> >>> FWIW, that doesn't make much sense - putting the physical block
> >>> size into a variable named "logical_block_size".....
> > Yeah, that name wouldn't make much sense with this change. Its
> > actually being used to compare to the fs block size and then its
> > passed into aiodio_sparse2 as offset. 091 and 268 use the more
> > generic name bsize, should I can change it to that?
> Well, that was put there with:
> commit 2dbd21dc152d89715263990c881025f17c7b632e
> Author: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Feb 11 15:20:02 2011 -0500
> 240: only run when the file system block size is larger than the
> disk sector size
> This test really wants to test partial file-system block I/Os.
> Thus, if the device has a 4K sector size, and the file system has a
> 4K block size, there's really no point in running the test. In the
> attached patch, I check that the fs block size is larger than the
> device's logical block size, which should cover a 4k device block
> size with a 16k fs block size.
> I verified that the patched test does not run on my 4k sector
> device with a 4k file system. I also verified that it continues to
> run on a 512 byte logical sector device with a 4k file system block
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
The name was added in this commit, and the message would lead me to
believe that Jeff intended for the test to not run on a 4k physical
sector disk with a 4k fs, so is the "logical_block_size" name a