Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Jens> Fixing the overflow aside, I question the validity of setting the
Jens> physical block size to something larger than PAGE_SIZE as there's
Jens> no way that that could really work in the current kernel.

Jens> I would suggest doing something similar as we do with other
Jens> 'invalid' settings that we cannot honor, print a warning and drop
Jens> the queue limits to PAGE_SIZE.

Mike and I have been bouncing this back and forth on this the last
couple of days.

I totally agree with enforcing hard limits like the logical blocks size
inside the kernel. We have to. But the physical block size is just an
I/O hint. And consequently I prefer mkfs to do sanity checking in this
case and not the kernel. We report the topology truthfully and then
userland can treat the data as it sees fit.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux