[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EFBEC7C.4060902@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:28:44 +0800
From: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
CC: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug in BLKBSZSET/GET ioctl ?
On 12/29/2011 12:20 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:51:45AM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> This is first reported to *libguestfs*: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624335
>>
>> Then, I looked into upstream util-linux and it seems nothing wrong. I'm not convinced that it's a kernel bug.
>>
>> produce:
>>
>> ---
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>> 4096
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 2048 /dev/sda6
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>> 4096
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 512 /dev/sda6
>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>> 4096
>
> I think each blockdev invocation is working on a *new* bdev object.
But the address of *new* bdev is the same?
I did printk, and they all returned the same address.
> You'll get consistent results if somehow keep it referenced, for
But isn't it a bug? It seems that the setbsz has no effect?
Thanks,
-Wanlong
> example, run a background copy task:
>
> # cp /dev/sda6 /dev/null &
>
> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 512 /dev/sda6
> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists