Are we suggesting the document wording change or actual code change? On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > -- Life is too short for silly things so invest your time in some productive outputs!! -- 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
