Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-15 Thread Pali Rohár
On Thursday 15 June 2017 10:34:27 Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 14-06-17 21:36:45, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 June 2017 14:59:55 Jan Kara wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > > > >

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-15 Thread Pali Rohár
On Thursday 15 June 2017 10:34:27 Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 14-06-17 21:36:45, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 June 2017 14:59:55 Jan Kara wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > > > >

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-15 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 14-06-17 21:36:45, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 13 June 2017 14:59:55 Jan Kara wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ > > > > > > It is

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-15 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 14-06-17 21:36:45, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 13 June 2017 14:59:55 Jan Kara wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ > > > > > > It is

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-14 Thread Pali Rohár
On Tuesday 13 June 2017 14:59:55 Jan Kara wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ > > > > It is really a good improvement to recognize UDF file system which

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-14 Thread Pali Rohár
On Tuesday 13 June 2017 14:59:55 Jan Kara wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ > > > > It is really a good improvement to recognize UDF file system which

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-13 Thread Jan Kara
Hi, On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ > > It is really a good improvement to recognize UDF file system which have > block size different from disk sector size and also

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-13 Thread Jan Kara
Hi, On Mon 12-06-17 22:40:14, Pali Rohár wrote: > Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ > > It is really a good improvement to recognize UDF file system which have > block size different from disk sector size and also

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-12 Thread Pali Rohár
Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ It is really a good improvement to recognize UDF file system which have block size different from disk sector size and also different from 2048. But should not detection on 4K native

Re: udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-06-12 Thread Pali Rohár
Hi! I found that following UDF patch was included into linus tree: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9524557/ It is really a good improvement to recognize UDF file system which have block size different from disk sector size and also different from 2048. But should not detection on 4K native

Re: [RFC 1/1 linux-next] udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-01-20 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 18-01-17 19:39:35, Fabian Frederick wrote: > udf_fill_super() used udf_parse_options() to flag UDF_FLAG_BLOCKSIZE_SET > when blocksize was specified otherwise used 512 bytes > (bdev_logical_block_size) and 2048 bytes (UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE) > IOW both 1024 and 4096 specifications were

Re: [RFC 1/1 linux-next] udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-01-20 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 18-01-17 19:39:35, Fabian Frederick wrote: > udf_fill_super() used udf_parse_options() to flag UDF_FLAG_BLOCKSIZE_SET > when blocksize was specified otherwise used 512 bytes > (bdev_logical_block_size) and 2048 bytes (UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE) > IOW both 1024 and 4096 specifications were

[RFC 1/1 linux-next] udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-01-18 Thread Fabian Frederick
udf_fill_super() used udf_parse_options() to flag UDF_FLAG_BLOCKSIZE_SET when blocksize was specified otherwise used 512 bytes (bdev_logical_block_size) and 2048 bytes (UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE) IOW both 1024 and 4096 specifications were required or resulted in "mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad

[RFC 1/1 linux-next] udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount

2017-01-18 Thread Fabian Frederick
udf_fill_super() used udf_parse_options() to flag UDF_FLAG_BLOCKSIZE_SET when blocksize was specified otherwise used 512 bytes (bdev_logical_block_size) and 2048 bytes (UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE) IOW both 1024 and 4096 specifications were required or resulted in "mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad