I think we should just skip the alignment/adjustment if size_percent is equal to 100. It doesn't make sense to change it for full size. I'd rather have consistent behavior here, and I think the risk is pretty low in this case. On 3/7/18 1:19 PM, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: > I'd argue that by now someone will have started depending on the > rounding behaviour of a percentage size and someone else will be > depending on the non-rounding behaviour when its specified without > percentages so you'd need a strong reason to change. However > documenting this quirk would be helpful... > > On 7 March 2018 at 19:07, abhishek koundal <akoundal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So do we say its how the tool has to behave? (surely with added documentation) >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I'd say it's something that could be better documented (size as >>> percentage rounds to the minimum blocksize) in the same way it's >>> already documented for offset percentages. The problem is if size >>> didn't do the rounding of percentages things would get tricky when you >>> start trying to cut disks up using offset and size (think offset=0% >>> size=25% then offset=25% size=25%). Plus you don't really want to do >>> rounding when the user specifies an exact amount/doesn't set anything >>> at all because you want to assume the user knows what they are >>> doing... > -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
