[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LVM and XFS cannot set blocksize on block device

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LVM and XFS cannot set blocksize on block device
From: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:28:10 +1000
Cc: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>, Rene Salmon <rsalmon@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20060928153218.GA26366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <45185424.2030707@xxxxxxxxxx> <20060926001737.GA10224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45193204.3030500@xxxxxxxxxx> <20060926224053.GA31542@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <451A669D.9020503@xxxxxxxxx> <451BA2AF.9090703@xxxxxxx> <20060928153218.GA26366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20060909)
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:23:43PM +1000, Tim Shimmin wrote:

I'll have a look soon at passing the mkfs.xfs -s option thru to
libxfs which is consistent with the existing code.

(following up on something mentioned off the list)

When you do this change please consider *not* making the code fallback
to a different blocksize if the ioctl fails when "-s size=" is given.

The logic here is that if someone clearly wants a specific value and
if that cannot be met it should error out with a suitable message, not
silently do something else.

I agree.
I prefer default behaviour to happen when we are using the defaults -
so we can do fallback behaviour under the assumption the user
doesn't mind.
But when we ask for something explicitly, then do it or error out.

I'd be tempted to reuse libxfs_init_t's setblksize to be 1 as it currently
is if one wants the device blksize to be set and
>1 (really > 512 etc...) if one wants to set it to a particular value.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>