From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE8DC433B4 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 13:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B61613CD for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 13:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233899AbhENNkj (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2021 09:40:39 -0400 Received: from eu-shark1.inbox.eu ([195.216.236.81]:46266 "EHLO eu-shark1.inbox.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229906AbhENNki (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2021 09:40:38 -0400 Received: from eu-shark1.inbox.eu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eu-shark1-out.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C439C6C00679; Fri, 14 May 2021 16:39:25 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=inbox.eu; s=20140211; t=1620999565; bh=OoeRIQxOMKk9OgeySejE1KkccCc5yd0InyLOOKYO/8I=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to; b=sCCUeLj3oWXf8dYqzgRaWdt6DPmGEflPRM0JqC5K33R5O90SvnMj0s92BSxHaIKSI uNNsA3Ry8DULfUZXT21+2ere49bYFay2LqtyhII8iYZDu2X4Jwx96nMYKrbJtDFk4l b1MuRd0XZvD2LAPRtgKqRyIehiI4TtdvQFy3mJWM= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eu-shark1-in.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BEF6C00663; Fri, 14 May 2021 16:39:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from eu-shark1.inbox.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eu-shark1.inbox.eu [127.0.0.1]) (spamfilter, port 35) with ESMTP id 6L5vlgoI3L-m; Fri, 14 May 2021 16:39:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail.inbox.eu (eu-pop1 [127.0.0.1]) by eu-shark1-in.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD666C00606; Fri, 14 May 2021 16:39:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from nas (unknown [153.127.9.202]) (Authenticated sender: l@damenly.su) by mail.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A5F9A1BE00F0; Fri, 14 May 2021 16:39:22 +0300 (EEST) References: <20210511042501.900731-1-l@damenly.su> <20210512140135.GR7604@twin.jikos.cz> <20210514112243.GT7604@suse.cz> User-agent: mu4e 1.5.8; emacs 27.2 From: Su Yue To: dsterba@suse.cz Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: do not BUG_ON if btrfs_add_to_fsid succeeded to write superblock Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 21:23:12 +0800 In-reply-to: <20210514112243.GT7604@suse.cz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: OK X-ESPOL: 6N1mlpY3ejOlj12/QnnZGw8prSpLQI+R9ua80BxblHj7NSiYDTYAEE/3gR8FQA/Gog== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri 14 May 2021 at 19:22, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:37:29AM +0800, Su Yue wrote: >> >> On Wed 12 May 2021 at 22:01, David Sterba >> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:25:01PM +0800, Su Yue wrote: >> >> Commit 8ef9313cf298 ("btrfs-progs: zoned: implement >> >> log-structured >> >> superblock") changed to write BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_SIZE bytes to >> >> device. >> >> The before num of bytes to be written is sectorsize. >> >> It causes mkfs.btrfs failed on my 16k pagesize kvm: >> > >> > What architecture is that? >> > >> The host chip is Apple m1 so it's arm64 but only supporting 16k >> and 4k >> pagesize. Since btrfs subpage work cares 64k pagesize for now, >> I >> usually run xfstests with 16k pagesize and 16k sectorsize. So >> far, so >> good. > > Interesting, what's the distro? I haven't found one that would > be > pre-built with 16k pages so I assume it's built from scratch. > Among all > Right, I initially booted the kvm using Ubuntu kernel built with 4k pages then compiled 16k pagesize kernel manully. -- Su > the page sizes we've seen so far 4k is almost everywhere, 64k is > ppc and > arm (both native), and sparc has 8k. 16k is a new one, though I > don't > think it would catch something we haven't seen so far it adds a > bit to > the CPU capabilities coverage. >