On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Jeff Moyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan Williams <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jeff Moyer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dan Williams <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> Commit a7320456f1bc "ndctl: add sector_size to 'ndctl list' output" >>>> mishandles the case where a namespace does not specify a sector_size, >>>> but otherwise supports a sector_size selection: >>>> >>>> # ndctl list --namespace=namespace1.0 >>>> { >>>> "dev":"namespace1.0", >>>> "mode":"memory", >>>> "size":32763805696, >>>> "uuid":"7c985ba5-6d33-48bd-8fde-6c25a520abe0", >>>> "sector_size":-1, >>>> "blockdev":"pmem1", >>>> "numa_node":0 >>>> } >>>> >>>> Fix this and clean up the output to only provide a sector_size in the >>>> non-default (i.e. != 512 bytes) case. >>> >>> That sounds confusing. Why not just always print out the sector size? >> >> I'm assuming the users that will go through the hassle of specifying a >> non-default sector_size are few and far between. This helps with the >> useful information density on a single screen for humans looking at >> json output. > > I think that, to the novice, seeing one namespace print out sector size > and another not do the same, that would be confusing. Also, you'd have > to know what the default is.
Yes, but personally I think it is only an expert that would care about non-512 byte sector sizes. There are no device physics or other benefits that require different sector sizes. The only potential benefit is amortizing the cost of BTT over larger sectors, but for Linux ext4 and xfs should be fine without a BTT. The UEFI spec unfortunately requires a default of 4K sector size, but that's only for inter-OS compatibility. I'm just finding it hard to justify treating sector_size as a first class attribute that the typical user would care about. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
