On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:16:25PM +0200, Nikolay Ivanets wrote:
вт, 11 лют. 2020 о 17:20 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> пише:
I pushed this with some trailing whitespace fixes, and I dropped the change to tmp/.gitignore since the test does clean up after itself. I also fixed test-qemu-drive-with-blocksize-libvirt.sh so it doesn't actually open /dev/sda etc on the host (don't run tests as root!)
Thanks!
However ...
We already use blocksize as an optional parameter to mkfs. While they don't directly conflict, it is confusing. Is there a reason we shouldn't call this new parameter "sectorsize"?
We can change the parameter name any time up til we make the next stable release.
But mkfs has 'sectorsize' optional parameter as well. :-) Here are my thoughts: 1. Our 'blocksize' parameter is related to disks and it's using everywhere in context of disks. It hardly can confuse users with mkfs' blocksize which is related to a file system. 2. Under the hood this parameter is tied to physical/logical block size so it named accordingly.
OK fair enough. I didn't spot that it had "sectorsize" too. Let's leave it alone. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html