On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:16:56PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c
> > index 42b6f9c..a7524c4 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c
> > @@ -470,6 +470,35 @@ static struct pnfs_layout_segment *bl_alloc_lseg(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo,
> > }
> >
> > static void
> > +bl_return_range(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo,
> > + struct pnfs_layout_range *range)
> > +{
> > + struct pnfs_block_layout *bl = BLK_LO2EXT(lo);
> > + sector_t offset = range->offset >> SECTOR_SHIFT, end;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + if (range->offset % 8) {
> why arbitrary block size? You should be able to use the blocksize
> returned by server, right?
I need to look into it. Right now the client has all extents properly
aligned, and allowing a smaller size here would change that. Give me
some time to test it and get back to you.
>
> btw, did you test your patchset with smaller block size such as 2K/1K?
> Did it work?
I did test a very early version but haven't redone the tests. It worked
fine because even although the server supported smaller blocks the client
now never asks for anything not aligned to 4k!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
