On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:46:17 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
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.
I see, thanks!
BTW: could you tell us the URL of Chris' raid56 tree? I just find the raid56 tree
that is managed by David Woodhouse.
http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git
Regards
Miao Xie
--
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
