----- 原始邮件 -----
> 发件人: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 收件人: "Zorro Lang" <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 发送时间: 星期五, 2015年 8 月 14日 上午 12:23:22
> 主题: Re: [PATCH][RFC] xfs_copy: don't use DIRECT IO to copy 4k sector device
>
> On 8/13/15 10:07 AM, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > When I run xfstests xfs/032 in ppc64le, I hit a failure:
> >
> > xfs_copy: read failed: Invalid argument
> > xfs_copy: size check failed
> > xfs_copy: /dev/sda5 filesystem failed to initialize
> > xfs_copy: Aborting.
> > Copy failed for Sector size 4096 Block size 4096
> >
> > I try to use gdb trace xfs_copy. I find it try to open the
> > source device with DIRECT flag, then read the device with
> > ((1<<BBSHIFT))=512 bytes length. If the source device is
> > 4k sector, directly read 512 bytes will be failed.
> >
> > xfs_copy '-b' option only work for target file/device, to
> > sure it will open the target without DIRECT flag. But useless
> > for source device open.
> >
> > So I make DIRECT flag only be enabled when source device
> > sector size equal BBSIZE.
>
> Which version of xfsprogs did you test? This is recently upstream:
Sorry I didn't notice that you have fix this problem. I test on the
newest version from git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsprogs, it haven't
fix this problem. I test this patch on it at first. Then I find
there is another version in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev.git
I don't know they are too different, so I didn't check if this xfsprogs-dev has
fixed it, and just did this patch on it and send out.
Sorry for this mistake, and your patch is really better:)
Thanks,
Zorro Lang
>
> commit c63ce10a9450020382bbbe2c48788961b19830f4
> Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Jul 31 09:03:11 2015 +1000
>
> xfs_copy: fix copy of hard 4k devices
>
> If we have a pure 4k device with no 512 emulation, xfs_copy
> fails straightaway because it tries to do a 512-byte direct
> IO read of the superblock.
>
> Do like we do in xfs_db, and read in the max possible sector size,
> because we don't yet know what the filesystem's sector size is.
>
> This fixes a failure in xfs/032 on a hard 4k device.
>
> -Eric
>
> > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not so familiar for xfsprogs, so I'm not sure this's the best
> > idea to fix this problem. Please help to check, and maybe give me
> > better suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks very much,
> > Zorro Lang
> >
> > copy/xfs_copy.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/copy/xfs_copy.c b/copy/xfs_copy.c
> > index e13f468..1cd6253 100644
> > --- a/copy/xfs_copy.c
> > +++ b/copy/xfs_copy.c
> > @@ -666,7 +666,6 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> > /* prepare the libxfs_init structure */
> >
> > memset(&xargs, 0, sizeof(xargs));
> > - xargs.isdirect = LIBXFS_DIRECT;
> > xargs.isreadonly = LIBXFS_ISREADONLY;
> >
> > if (source_is_file) {
> > @@ -689,6 +688,8 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> > 1 << (XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE_LOG - BBSHIFT), 0, NULL);
> > sb = &mbuf.m_sb;
> > libxfs_sb_from_disk(sb, XFS_BUF_TO_SBP(sbp));
> > + if (sb->sb_sectsize == BBSIZE)
> > + xargs.isdirect = LIBXFS_DIRECT;
> >
> > /* Do it again, now with proper length and verifier */
> > libxfs_putbuf(sbp);
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
