On 12/29/2011 12:40 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:28:44PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote: >> 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. > > Then the block size value should be reset in one of the bd_set_size() > calls in __blkdev_get(). Is the behaviour right that setting bd_block_size to the logical_block_size every time when __blkdev_get()? > >>> 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? > > Yeah, it does look like unexpected behavior to the end user.. And at least, the ioctl BLKBZSET seems useless. Thanks -Wanlong > > 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
