Re: Bug in BLKBSZSET/GET ioctl ?

[Wanlong Gao]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/