On 01/08/2010 05:40 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Maybe we should pick one on image creation and then stick to it. For an
image format we could write down this information in the image, but for
a raw images that's impossible.
The management system should remember it (like it remembers
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:16:15PM +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
It would be good if virtio relayed the backing device's basic topology
hints, so:
- If the backing dev is a real disk with 512-byte sectors,
virtio should indicate 512-byte blocks to the guest.
- If the backing
On 01/05/2010 02:56 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Those should be the same for any sane interface. They are for classical
disk devices with larger block sizes (MO, s390 dasd) and also for the
now appearing 4k sector scsi disks. But in the ide world people are
concerned about dos/window legacy
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:00:35 pm Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:38:51PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
I thought this was what I was doing, but I have shown over and over that
I have no idea about block devices.
Our current driver treats BLK_SIZE as the logical and
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/05/2010 02:56 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Those should be the same for any sane interface. They are for classical
disk devices with larger block sizes (MO, s390 dasd) and also for the
now appearing 4k sector scsi disks. But in the ide world people are
concerned about
Avi Kivity wrote:
Physical block size is the what the logical block size would have been
is software didn't suck. In theory they should be the same, but since
compatibility reaons clamp the logical block size to 512, they have to
differ. A disk may have a physical block size of 4096 and
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:38:51PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
I thought this was what I was doing, but I have shown over and over that
I have no idea about block devices.
Our current driver treats BLK_SIZE as the logical and physical size (see
blk_queue_logical_block_size).
I have no
