Ok, looks like we have a definition here about what mkfs should do in regards of the lbs/pbs. I'll be working on a patch to it. Is there any other thing I should pay attention besides what have been discussed here? I'll send a patch as soon as I have it :-) On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:19:27AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:38:33AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 11/29/11 11:15 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > >>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > Eric> It seems that we should be checking for any alignment offsets in > > > Eric> libxfs then, too; if there IS an offset, then perhaps 4k is the > > > Eric> wrong answer, (perhaps there is no right answer) but if there is > > > Eric> NO offset, 4k should be the right choice, yes? > > > > > > In most cases the partitioning/DM tools should give you a 0 offset. But > > > it would a good idea to at least print a warning if lbs != pbs and > > > offset > 0. > > > > Right, Dave's concern was for when the partitioning tools didn't do the > > job, we don't want to break fs consistency guarantees... > > > > Dave, does checking for an offset before choosing 4k sectors seem > > sufficient to you? > > Yes, especially if combined with Christoph's comments about ensure > the "-f" flag is needed to make a filesystem on an unaligned config. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- --Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
