[PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks

[PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks

[Mariusz Dabrowski]

From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>

"Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
different than 512B.

Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
print "Sector Size".

Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
---
 super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
index e13c940..147a70c 100644
--- a/super-intel.c
+++ b/super-intel.c
@@ -1473,13 +1473,16 @@ static void print_imsm_dev(struct intel_super *super,
 		       ord & IMSM_ORD_REBUILD ? " (out-of-sync)" : "");
 	} else
 		printf("      This Slot : ?\n");
+	printf("    Sector Size : %u\n", super->sector_size);
 	sz = __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_high);
 	sz <<= 32;
 	sz += __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_low);
-	printf("     Array Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
+	printf("     Array Size : %llu%s\n",
+		   (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
 	       human_size(sz * 512));
 	sz = blocks_per_member(map);
-	printf("   Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
+	printf("   Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n",
+		   (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
 	       human_size(sz * 512));
 	printf("  Sector Offset : %llu\n",
 		pba_of_lba0(map));
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks

[Jes Sorensen]

On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
> 
> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
> different than 512B.
> 
> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
> print "Sector Size".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
> ---
>   super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the output. 
Does anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?

Jes

> diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
> index e13c940..147a70c 100644
> --- a/super-intel.c
> +++ b/super-intel.c
> @@ -1473,13 +1473,16 @@ static void print_imsm_dev(struct intel_super *super,
>   		       ord & IMSM_ORD_REBUILD ? " (out-of-sync)" : "");
>   	} else
>   		printf("      This Slot : ?\n");
> +	printf("    Sector Size : %u\n", super->sector_size);
>   	sz = __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_high);
>   	sz <<= 32;
>   	sz += __le32_to_cpu(dev->size_low);
> -	printf("     Array Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
> +	printf("     Array Size : %llu%s\n",
> +		   (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
>   	       human_size(sz * 512));
>   	sz = blocks_per_member(map);
> -	printf("   Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n", (unsigned long long)sz,
> +	printf("   Per Dev Size : %llu%s\n",
> +		   (unsigned long long)sz * 512 / super->sector_size,
>   	       human_size(sz * 512));
>   	printf("  Sector Offset : %llu\n",
>   		pba_of_lba0(map));
> 

Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks

[Mariusz Dabrowski]

On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
 > On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
 >> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
 >>
 >> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
 >> different than 512B.
 >>
 >> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
 >> print "Sector Size".
 >>
 >> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
 >> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
 >> ---
 >>   super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
 >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 >
 > I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the output. Does
 > anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?
 >
 > Jes
 >

Hi Jes,

some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output and we 
haven't heard any complaints about that change.
Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is unchanged in 
this patch.

Thanks,
Mariusz

Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks

[Jes Sorensen]

On 05/10/2017 04:43 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>  > On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>  >> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>  >>
>  >> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector 
> size
>  >> different than 512B.
>  >>
>  >> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. 
> Additionally
>  >> print "Sector Size".
>  >>
>  >> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>  >> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
>  >> ---
>  >>   super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
>  >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  >
>  > I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the 
> output. Does
>  > anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?
>  >
>  > Jes
>  >
> 
> Hi Jes,
> 
> some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output and 
> we haven't heard any complaints about that change.
> Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is 
> unchanged in this patch.

Hi Mariusz,

That is correct, however the policy stuff was added to the end of the 
output, it didn't change the existing part. I am a little mixed on this 
one, but I do agree --export should be the recommended use case for scripts.

Cheers,
Jes

Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks

[Mariusz Dabrowski]

On 05/10/2017 05:18 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 04:43 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>> On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>  > On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>>  >> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>>  >>
>>  >> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with sector size
>>  >> different than 512B.
>>  >>
>>  >> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. Additionally
>>  >> print "Sector Size".
>>  >>
>>  >> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>>  >> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
>>  >> ---
>>  >>   super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
>>  >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>  >
>>  > I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the output. Does
>>  > anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from this?
>>  >
>>  > Jes
>>  >
>>
>> Hi Jes,
>>
>> some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output and we
>> haven't heard any complaints about that change.
>> Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is unchanged in
>> this patch.
>
> Hi Mariusz,
>
> That is correct, however the policy stuff was added to the end of the output, it
> didn't change the existing part. I am a little mixed on this one, but I do agree
> --export should be the recommended use case for scripts.
>
> Cheers,
> Jes

Are you willing to accept this patch if no one disagrees or should I remove this 
additional field and resend the patch?

Re: [PATCH] IMSM: Correct --examine output for 4k disks

[Jes Sorensen]

On 05/11/2017 07:49 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 05:18 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 05/10/2017 04:43 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2017 06:04 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>  > On 05/09/2017 08:03 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote:
>>>  >> From: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" are incorrect for disks with 
>>> sector size
>>>  >> different than 512B.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Calculate "Array Size" and "Per Dev Size" based on sector size. 
>>> Additionally
>>>  >> print "Sector Size".
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Kunt <maksymilian.kunt@intel.com>
>>>  >> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>
>>>  >> ---
>>>  >>   super-intel.c | 7 +++++--
>>>  >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>  >
>>>  > I am a little wary of this change as it changes the order of the 
>>> output. Does
>>>  > anyone have tools parsing this information which could break from 
>>> this?
>>>  >
>>>  > Jes
>>>  >
>>>
>>> Hi Jes,
>>>
>>> some time ago we have added "RWH Policy" field to --examine output 
>>> and we
>>> haven't heard any complaints about that change.
>>> Also it is better to parse output from --export option which is 
>>> unchanged in
>>> this patch.
>>
>> Hi Mariusz,
>>
>> That is correct, however the policy stuff was added to the end of the 
>> output, it
>> didn't change the existing part. I am a little mixed on this one, but 
>> I do agree
>> --export should be the recommended use case for scripts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jes
> 
> Are you willing to accept this patch if no one disagrees or should I 
> remove this additional field and resend the patch?

I have applied it - nobody has spoken out against it and -E is the 
correct way to pull the info out.

Jes