On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > Only XFS was enabled and tested as a part of this series as it has > supported block sizes up to 64k and sector sizes up to 32k for years. > The only thing missing was the page cache magic to enable bs > ps. However any filesystem > that doesn't depend on buffer-heads and support larger block sizes > already should be able to leverage this effort to also support LBS, > bs > ps. I think you should choose whether you're going to use 'bs > ps' or LBS and stick to it. They're both pretty inscrutable and using both interchanagbly is worse. But I think filesystems which use buffer_heads should be fine to support bs > ps. The problems with the buffer cache are really when you try to support small block sizes and large folio sizes (eg arrays of bhs on the stack). Supporting bs == folio_size shouldn't be a problem.