On 12/29/2011 12:20 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:51:45AM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote: >> Hi all: >> >> This is first reported to *libguestfs*: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624335 >> >> Then, I looked into upstream util-linux and it seems nothing wrong. I'm not convinced that it's a kernel bug. >> >> produce: >> >> --- >> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6 >> 4096 >> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 2048 /dev/sda6 >> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6 >> 4096 >> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 512 /dev/sda6 >> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6 >> 4096 > > I think each blockdev invocation is working on a *new* bdev object. But the address of *new* bdev is the same? I did printk, and they all returned the same address. > You'll get consistent results if somehow keep it referenced, for But isn't it a bug? It seems that the setbsz has no effect? Thanks, -Wanlong > example, run a background copy task: > > # cp /dev/sda6 /dev/null & > > # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6 > # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 512 /dev/sda6 > # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6 > > Thanks, > Fengguang > -- 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
