lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Bug in BLKBSZSET/GET ioctl ?
On 12/29/2011 12:20 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:51:45AM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> This is first reported to *libguestfs*: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624335
>>
>> Then, I looked into upstream util-linux and it seems nothing wrong. I'm not convinced that it's a kernel bug.
>>
>> produce:
>>
>> ---
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>> 4096
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 2048 /dev/sda6
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>> 4096
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 512 /dev/sda6
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>> 4096
>
> I think each blockdev invocation is working on a *new* bdev object.


But the address of *new* bdev is the same?
I did printk, and they all returned the same address.

> You'll get consistent results if somehow keep it referenced, for


But isn't it a bug? It seems that the setbsz has no effect?

Thanks,
-Wanlong

> example, run a background copy task:
>
> # cp /dev/sda6 /dev/null &
>
> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 512 /dev/sda6
> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-29 05:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans