Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-17 Thread David Sterba
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:21:50PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > t%2dsend%2demail%2dchandan%40linux.vnet.ibm.com) restrict the stripesize > > > to be either sectorsize or 4096. So I think these restrictions are good > > > enough to make sure we don't get into the situation explained by you.

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-17 Thread Liu Bo
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:48:05AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:01:41 AM Liu Bo wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:53:59PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 05:09:55 PM Liu Bo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:17PM

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-16 Thread Chandan Rajendra
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:01:41 AM Liu Bo wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:53:59PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 05:09:55 PM Liu Bo wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:17PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 09:12:28 AM

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-16 Thread Liu Bo
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:53:59PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 05:09:55 PM Liu Bo wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:17PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 09:12:28 AM Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > > Hello Liu Bo, > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-16 Thread Chandan Rajendra
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 05:09:55 PM Liu Bo wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:17PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 09:12:28 AM Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > Hello Liu Bo, > > > > > > We have to fix the following check in check_super() as well, > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-15 Thread Liu Bo
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:17PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 09:12:28 AM Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > Hello Liu Bo, > > > > We have to fix the following check in check_super() as well, > > > >if (btrfs_super_stripesize(sb) != 4096) { > >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-15 Thread Chandan Rajendra
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 09:12:28 AM Chandan Rajendra wrote: > Hello Liu Bo, > > We have to fix the following check in check_super() as well, > >if (btrfs_super_stripesize(sb) != 4096) { > error("invalid stripesize %u", btrfs_super_stripesize(sb)); >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-14 Thread Chandan Rajendra
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 02:33:43 PM Liu Bo wrote: > Right now stripesize is set to 4096 while sectorsize is set to > max(4096, pagesize). However, kernel requires super_stripesize > to match with sectorsize. > > Reported-by: Eryu Guan > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo

[PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

2016-06-14 Thread Liu Bo
Right now stripesize is set to 4096 while sectorsize is set to max(4096, pagesize). However, kernel requires super_stripesize to match with sectorsize. Reported-by: Eryu Guan Signed-off-by: Liu Bo --- mkfs.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)