On 2010-09-28 07:14, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Jens> Yes, from a correctness point of view it doesn't matter, but when > Jens> people go looking up fixes for whatever reason, it's much better > Jens> to include such a fix in the original patch so it's not missed. > > I have talked to a few standards people today. They are of the opinion > that the device's usage of the physical block exponent is incorrect. And > that the device must provide the Block Limits and the TP VPD if thin > provisioning is enabled. > > However, devices with 8KiB physical blocks are shipping and 16KiB ditto > are right around the corner. Which says to me that it's important to > report the correct thing to userland so we can cause allocators to align > on the right boundaries, etc. If we artificially clamp the physical > block size parameter in the kernel we are losing information. Note that > there are no kernel users of the physical block size parameter at all. With the revised understanding that this is purely the IO hint, then yes I agree we should not clamp it. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
