On 07/19/2010 09:56 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:12:13 -0400, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Yan, Zheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
