On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:22:26AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:12:51AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > On 08/18/2017 10:05 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > >> On 08/18/2017 09:47 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > [ .. ]
> > >>>
> > >>> I actually checked losetup, it works just fine with LO_FLAGS_BLOCKSIZE
> > >>> always set and lo_init[0] always filled in.
> > >>>
> > >> The original argument I had with the util-linux maintainer did not
> > >> revolve so much around technical details :-)
> > >
> > > Karel, what were your concerns here?
> > >
> > It wasn't Karel, it was our guy.
> > Doesn't make it any better, though...
>
> I just went through the code and util-linux doesn't mention lo_init at
> all except for the definition, and everywhere it's using lo_flags would
> work fine with the behavior I implemented here. Unless there's an actual
> issue someone can point out, I see no reason to not do it this way.
BTW guys, it seems the current LO_FLAGS_BLOCKSIZE implementation does not
care about images from disks where is non-zero alignment offset. It
mean disks where is extra offset between logical and physical sectors
mapping. Something like:
modprobe scsi_debug dev_size_mb=100 sector_size=512 physblk_exp=3
lowest_aligned=7
...just pedantic note; IMHO it's fine to ignore this use-case ;-)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <[email protected]>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
