On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 03:00:31PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> /* Let's try to use the logical blocksize for the alignment. */
> - if (probe_logical_blocksize(fd, &bs->bl.request_alignment) < 0) {
> - bs->bl.request_alignment = 0;
> + if (!bs->bl.request_alignment) {
> + if (probe_logical_blocksize(fd, &bs->bl.request_alignment) < 0) {
> + bs->bl.request_alignment = 0;
> + }
> }
>
> #ifdef __linux__
> - /*
> - * The XFS ioctl definitions are shipped in extra packages that might
> - * not always be available. Since we just need the XFS_IOC_DIOINFO ioctl
> - * here, we simply use our own definition instead:
> - */
> - struct xfs_dioattr {
> - uint32_t d_mem;
> - uint32_t d_miniosz;
> - uint32_t d_maxiosz;
> - } da;
> - if (ioctl(fd, _IOR('X', 30, struct xfs_dioattr), &da) >= 0) {
> - bs->bl.request_alignment = da.d_miniosz;
> - /* The kernel returns wrong information for d_mem */
> - /* s->buf_align = da.d_mem; */
> + if (!bs->bl.request_alignment) {
This patch changes the fallback code to make the request_alignment value from
probe_logical_blocksize() override the value from XFS_IOC_DIOINFO. Is that
intentional?
> + if (ioctl(fd, _IOR('X', 30, struct xfs_dioattr), &da) >= 0) {
> + bs->bl.request_alignment = da.d_miniosz;
> + /* The kernel returns wrong information for d_mem */
> + /* s->buf_align = da.d_mem; */
Has this bug been reported to the XFS developers ([email protected])?
- Eric
