On 2021/01/20 19:07, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Shouldn't zonefs (in addition to the pending btrfs and nvmet patches) > start using this new value instead pf the physical block size? > Yes for zonefs. I will add one patch to this series for that. For nvmet patches, I will let Chaitanya handle that. For on-going btrfs, I think we can cover that with btrfs-progs (check in mkfs) for now and add a patch as a fix in 5.12 to check the FS block size on zoned devices, if the series is accepted. Patching now would cause the btrfs tree to not build. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
