On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Miao Xie <mi...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:01:26 +0800, Yan, Zheng <zheng....@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 07/19/2010 09:56 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:12:13 -0400, Chris Mason <chris.ma...@oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems that the btrfs doesn't support the sectorsize which is
>>>>>>> greater than the page size just like ext2/3/4, though we can use
>>>>>>> mkfs.btrfs to make a filesystem with a big sectorsize. Am I right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If yes, we must do more check in the mkfs.btrfs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, btrfs doesn't support the sectorsize> PAGE_size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So we must do more check in the mkfs.btrfs to avoid misuse, and I'll
>>>>> add some check of the sectorsize into the mkfs.btrfs.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but this is fixed up with the raid code, we'll allow different page
>>>> sizes.
>>>
>>> Is the raid code that you said the initialization code for the block
>>> devices?
>>> just like this:
>>>
>>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c:1430
>>> int btrfs_init_new_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char *device_path)
>>> {
>>> [snip]
>>> set_blocksize(device->bdev, 4096);
>>> [snip]
>>> }
>>>
>>> If yes, it uses a hard-code value to initialize the blocksize of the block
>>> device,
>>> not the blocksize of the btrfs, so the btrfs doesn't check the blocksize of
>>> the btrfs.
>>>
>> This is for btrfs super block, because size of btrfs super block is fixed.
>
> I don't know how this bug was fixed up. I think if the btrfs doesn't support
> the >PAGE_SIZE sectorsize, it should forbid mounting a filesystem with
> >PAGE_SIZE
> sectorsize. But in fact, we can mount.
>
> So I think this bug has not been fixed up or the fix is not so good.
>
This bug has been fixed up in Chris' raid56 tree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
