mkfs: a possible bad

From: Jan Tulak <jtulak@redhat.com>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: mkfs: a possible bad
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:28:38 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <551099978.15978267.1434551318983.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <919039035.15967379.1434550287476.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>

Hi,
I'm looking into mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c and I wonder, is "if (xi.dbsize > sectorsize)" correct?
It is a check for:
Warning: the data subvolume sector size %u is less than the sector size reported by the device (%u).

But psectorsize is assigned to sectorsize, not to xi.dbsize, so the two values seems to be swapped in the condition (and as arguments of the printf too).
I think this gone without noticing because usually, when creating a partition, the two values are the same. So even if the condition is wrong, nothing happens. 
And when -bsize=X is passed, then it is catched earlier and nothing happens again.

Only when I apply a patch that changes how mkfs acts when it gets a file instead of a block device, I start to see the warning, although physical sector size is 512 and block size is set to 4096. The numbers are swapped in the warning too...

I tried to run ./check -g quick and it seems that the change breaks nothing.

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
Jan Tulak
jtulak@redhat.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs