On 08/18/2017 09:47 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:43:19AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 08/18/2017 09:38 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:18:52AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: [ .. ] >>>> I've got quite some flak for daring to break existing interfaces, most >>>> notably setting logical and physical blocksize per default (which I >>>> would _love_ to have done, seeing that it really makes sense here). >>>> But as this would change the behaviour I've gone through pains (and >>>> several _years_ of iterations) to get this sorted. >>>> >>>> So if you design a blocktest for that ensure that >>>> a) the sysfs attributes before and after the patch are _identical_ >>>> b) the sysfs attributes will only change if the 'LO_FLAGS_BLOCKSIZE' >>>> flag has been set >>>> and >>>> c) validate the written blocksizes; this is required to be able to >>>> install bootloaders there >>>> >>>> This whole interface was designed such that you can prepare bootable >>>> diskimages for S/390 DASDs, which use a native 4k blocksize. >>> >>> Hi, Hannes, >>> >>> Wasn't insulting you at all, the only part of the interface I'm >>> complaining about is LOOP_GET_STATUS missing information :) >>> >> Sure. Just saying. >> But please make sure only to return that information if the >> LO_FLAGS_BLOCKSIZE flag is set; otherwise there's a rick of confusing >> losetup. > > I actually checked losetup, it works just fine with LO_FLAGS_BLOCKSIZE > always set and lo_init[0] always filled in. > The original argument I had with the util-linux maintainer did not revolve so much around technical details :-) Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
