Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] loop: Add 'lo_logical_blocksize'
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
References: <1477942639-109971-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de>
 <1477942639-109971-4-git-send-email-hare@suse.de>
 <20161101140127.GB16815@lst.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.com>,
        Ming@suse.de, "\"Lei" <"tom.leiming\""@gmail.co>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Message-ID: <25f0e1a4-f211-670e-00f8-364b3a85b468@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:57:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161101140127.GB16815@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1165
Lines: 29

On 11/01/2016 03:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:37:18PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> Add a new field 'lo_logical_blocksize' to hold the logical
>> blocksize of the loop device.
>
> Why do we use the same flag for both block sizes?  If there is a good
> reason for that it should be documented and both should be in the same
> patch.
>
_Actually_ the flag enables you to set the logical blocksize.
However, if you want to set the logical blocksize you also have to set a 
matching physical blocksize.
And the physical blocksize itself isn't settable, rather taken from the 
underlying device/filesystem/whatever.
So the flag itself does not have a dual purpose, it's just out of 
necessity that you have to set the physical blocksize if you want to 
change the logical blocksize.

And I got pushback when I proposed to set the physical blocksize always,
so I made it dependent on the LO_BLOCKSIZE flag, too.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imend?rffer, HRB 16746 (AG N?rnberg)