On 6/18/15 6:03 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "xfs-oss" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 1:26:33 AM
>> Subject: [PATCH] mkfs.xfs: always use underlying fs sector size when mkfs'ing a file
>>
>> If we are mkfs'ing a file, and that file is on a 4k sector filesystem,
>> we should make the fs image file with the same sector size, or things
>> may fail when they try to do direct IO in 512 byte chunks (depending
>> on whether it is a 512e or "hard" 4k device).
>>
>> Earlier commits attempted this to some degree:
>>
>> 5a7d59 xfsprogs: try to handle mkfs of a file on 4k sector device
>> 3800a2 mkfs.xfs: don't call blkid_get_topology on existing regular files
>>
>> but inexplicably missed the case where mkfs.xfs with "-d file" was
>> specified.
>>
>> One more try; in get_topology(), try to get the underlying fs sector
>> size in *all* cases where we are mkfs'ing a file, and set the sector size
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> (This does it for 512e as well as hard 4k drives, but I think that's
>> probably ok? If not, perhaps we should go further and attempt to
>> discern logical and physical sectors for the device under the
>> filesystem. Is it worth it? Not sure it is.)
>>
>> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
>> index e2a052d..e44c390 100644
>> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
>> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
>> @@ -462,31 +462,34 @@ static void get_topology(
>> struct fs_topology *ft,
>> int force_overwrite)
>> {
>> - if (!xi->disfile) {
>> - char *dfile = xi->volname ? xi->volname : xi->dname;
>> - struct stat statbuf;
>> + struct stat statbuf;
>> + char *dfile = xi->volname ? xi->volname : xi->dname;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * If our target is a regular file, and xi->disfile isn't
>> - * set (i.e. no "-d file" invocation), use platform_findsizes
>> - * to try to obtain the underlying filesystem's requirements
>> - * for direct IO; we'll set our sector size to that if possible.
>> - */
>> - if (!stat(dfile, &statbuf) && S_ISREG(statbuf.st_mode)) {
>> - int fd;
>> - long long dummy;
>> -
>> - fd = open(dfile, O_RDONLY);
>> - if (fd >= 0) {
>> - platform_findsizes(dfile, fd, &dummy,
>> - &ft->lsectorsize);
>> - close(fd);
>> - }
>> - } else {
>> - blkid_get_topology(dfile, &ft->dsunit, &ft->dswidth,
>> - &ft->lsectorsize, &ft->psectorsize,
>> - force_overwrite);
>> + /*
>> + * If our target is a regular file, use platform_findsizes
>> + * to try to obtain the underlying filesystem's requirements
>> + * for direct IO; we'll set our sector size to that if possible.
>> + */
>> + if (xi->disfile ||
>> + (!stat(dfile, &statbuf) && S_ISREG(statbuf.st_mode))) {
>> + int fd;
>> + int flags = O_RDONLY;
>> + long long dummy;
>> +
>> + /* with xi->disfile we may not have the file yet! */
>> + if (xi->disfile)
>> + flags |= O_CREAT;
>> +
>> + fd = open(dfile, flags, 0666);
>> + if (fd >= 0) {
>> + platform_findsizes(dfile, fd, &dummy, &ft->lsectorsize);
>> + close (fd);
>> }
>> +
>> + } else {
>> + blkid_get_topology(dfile, &ft->dsunit, &ft->dswidth,
>> + &ft->lsectorsize, &ft->psectorsize,
>> + force_overwrite);
>> }
>>
>> if (xi->rtname && !xi->risfile) {
>>
>
> This changes get_topology only for ENABLE_BLKID branch of #ifdef. Is
> that intentional, i.e. we don't expect anyone not using ENABLE_BLKID?
> Because otherwise, if mkfs is compiled without ENABLE_BLKID, then all
> we get is:
Hm, yeah, good point. I always forget about this. :( I can send V2.
And sorry if this overlaps w/ your changes- I got a bug report about
xfstests failing when testing hard 4k devices, and it was due to image
files created on a filesystem on that hard 4k device, and xfsprogs tools
fail when they try to do 512-byte direct IO to the image.
Thanks,
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
