Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:10:12 +0100 | From | Seth Forshee <> | Subject | Re: hfsplus mount regression in 2.6.38 |
| |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:35:20AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 04:58:21PM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > I took a crack at converting the users of direct bio to use > > bdev_logical_block_size instead of HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE. sb->s_blocksize > > doesn't turn out to work because it may change after reading the > > volume header. The patch is below; feedback is appreciated. > > > > So far I've only done light testing, and no testing with large-sector > > devices since I don't have any to test with. I'm still concerned about > > duplicating data also in the page cache with this approach. Any thoughts > > on whether or not this is something to be worried about? > > Did you manage to test it on a large sector device?
I've gotten some test results back, but the results are mixed. I haven't had much time yet to try to find out what's going wrong, but I hope to do so soon.
> I'm be rather surprised if we actually need the read modify write > cycles. I've not seen any filesystem that doesn't align it's metadata > to the sector size yet.
I agree. What I was more concerned about was that if you had e.g. a 2 KB sector device, metadata could possibly end up in the filesystem cache along with some file data in an adjacent block, and that as a result you could overwrite that data structure with stale data.
| |