On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:23:19 -0500 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > (You can probably mkfs w/ an explicit 512 sector size, and confirm > that 512-byte DIOs work again) Hi Eric, yep, confirmed that doing mkfs.xfs -b size=1024 (used 1024 instead of 512 so that 240 would run) makes 091, 240, and 268 work without my changes. > bleah, perhaps that was a mistake - or perhaps we need to fix > kernelspace to prefer physical-size IOs, but allow logical-size if a > DIO requests it. ext4 and btrfs did work, so perhaps that is what they are doing, I have not looked yet. [... test 240] > >>>> -logical_block_size=`blockdev --getss $TEST_DEV` > >>>> +logical_block_size=`blockdev --getpbsz $TEST_DEV` > >>> > >>> FWIW, that doesn't make much sense - putting the physical block > >>> size into a variable named "logical_block_size"..... > > > > Yeah, that name wouldn't make much sense with this change. Its > > actually being used to compare to the fs block size and then its > > passed into aiodio_sparse2 as offset. 091 and 268 use the more > > generic name bsize, should I can change it to that? > > Well, that was put there with: > > commit 2dbd21dc152d89715263990c881025f17c7b632e > Author: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Feb 11 15:20:02 2011 -0500 > > 240: only run when the file system block size is larger than the > disk sector size > This test really wants to test partial file-system block I/Os. > Thus, if the device has a 4K sector size, and the file system has a > 4K block size, there's really no point in running the test. In the > attached patch, I check that the fs block size is larger than the > device's logical block size, which should cover a 4k device block > size with a 16k fs block size. > > I verified that the patched test does not run on my 4k sector > device with a 4k file system. I also verified that it continues to > run on a 512 byte logical sector device with a 4k file system block > size. > Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> The name was added in this commit, and the message would lead me to believe that Jeff intended for the test to not run on a 4k physical sector disk with a 4k fs, so is the "logical_block_size" name a misnomer? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
