On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 02:54:03PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> When creating a filesytem where the data device has a sector size
> smalle than that of the RT device without further options, mkfs
> currently fails with:
>
> mkfs.xfs: error - cannot set blocksize 512 on block device $RTDEV: Invalid argument
>
> This is because XFS sets the sector size based on logical block size
> of the data device, but not that of the RT device. Change the code
> so that is uses the larger of the two values.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
That makes sense to me.
Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
--D
> ---
> mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> index 6cc7e6439ca1..0627af81da37 100644
> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> @@ -2368,7 +2368,9 @@ validate_sectorsize(
> * advertised sector size of the device. We use the physical
> * sector size unless the requested block size is smaller
> * than that, then we can use logical, but warn about the
> - * inefficiency.
> + * inefficiency. If the file system has a RT device, the
> + * sectorsize needs to be the maximum of the data and RT
> + * device.
> *
> * Some architectures have a page size > XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE.
> * In that case, a ramdisk or persistent memory device may
> @@ -2378,8 +2380,18 @@ validate_sectorsize(
> ft->data.physical_sector_size =
> ft->data.logical_sector_size;
> }
> -
> cfg->sectorsize = ft->data.physical_sector_size;
> +
> + if (cli->xi->rt.name) {
> + if (ft->rt.physical_sector_size > XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE) {
> + ft->rt.physical_sector_size =
> + ft->rt.logical_sector_size;
> + }
> +
> + if (cfg->sectorsize < ft->rt.physical_sector_size)
> + cfg->sectorsize = ft->rt.physical_sector_size;
> + }
> +
> if (cfg->blocksize < cfg->sectorsize &&
> cfg->blocksize >= ft->data.logical_sector_size) {
> fprintf(stderr,
> --
> 2.45.2
>
>
