Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:54:21 +0300 | From | Jari Ruusu <> | Subject | Re: loop device broken in 2.4.6-pre5 |
| |
Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > At 18:59 26/06/2001, Jari Ruusu wrote: > >Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > > > From jari.ruusu@pp.inet.fi Tue Jun 26 10:20:51 2001 > > > > > > This patch fixes the problem. Please consider applying. > > > > > > --- linux-2.4.6-pre5/drivers/block/loop.c Sat Jun 23 07:52:39 2001 > > > +++ linux/drivers/block/loop.c Tue Jun 26 09:21:47 2001 > > > @@ -653,7 +653,7 @@ > > > bs = 0; > > > if (blksize_size[MAJOR(lo_device)]) > > > bs = blksize_size[MAJOR(lo_device)][MINOR(lo_device)]; > > > - if (!bs) > > > + if (!bs || S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) > > > bs = BLOCK_SIZE; > > > > > > set_blocksize(dev, bs); > > > > > > But why 1024? Next week your neighbour comes and has a file-backed > > > loop device with an odd number of 512-byte sectors. > > > If you want a guarantee, then I suppose one should pick 512. > > > (Or make the set blocksize ioctl also work on loop devices.) > > > >Because 1024 was the previous default. Keeping the same default that was > >used before offers least surprises to users and tools. > > But also makes it not work for odd number of sectors which is much worse IMHO. > > Also it is far more surprising to find that the last sector is lost > silently than to have a difference in behaviour, incorrect behaviour needs > to be corrected not kept for backwards compatibility till the end of time. > And the sooner that happens, the better. Both people and utilities will get > used to it. Due to that 1024, mkntfs has to mark the disk dirty because it > can never be sure just how many sectors there really are and hence can't be > sure whether the backup boot sector was written to the correct place or not... > > Also, the loop device is currently not consistent with the rest of the kernel: > > * kernel physical block device: get_nr_sectors_sys_call returns the real > number of 512 byte sectors > * file mounted on loop device: sam sys_call returns the number of sectors & ~1. > > This difference in behaviour causes a much bigger surprise than anything > else if we are talking about surprises!
OK. My original complaint was that the default could be larger than 1024. I am happy with 512.
Regards, Jari Ruusu <jari.ruusu@pp.inet.fi> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |