> > Ibragimov, the problem with your patch is that it means that users who > > had previously created a 1k block file system on an advanced format > > disk with 4k physical sectors but 512 byte logical sectors would no > > longer be able to mount that file system. Yes, it was stupid for them > > to do so, and they are deserving of plenty of mocking. But > > technically, it is something that should work, even if it's not > > advisable from a performance point of view. > > I haven't found anyone with AF disk who agreed to run test of 1k-block > fs mount with modified kernel, so I tried to emulate such disk on > available hardware. AF disk with 4kb sector reports its size in > 106th word of ATA ID. This is the only difference, except write > performace. So if I change 106th word, I will get emulated AF disk. > As you can see below, it reports 4096-byte physical block size. > ext4 with 1k block size mounts and operates on such disk without > any notable problem. Ping? The problem you mentioned (with 1k blocks on AF drive) do not exist, I think. Value returned by sb_min_blocksize used only until superblock is read from disk, then driver recalculates 'blocksize' from on-disk sb. So that change can't interfere with other code. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
