btrfs-progs: rename "sector size" to "block size" #930
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This will change all usage of btrfs_fs_info::sectorsize to btrfs_fs_info::blocksize. There are some extra changes involved: - Rename csum_tree_block_size()'s @csum_sectorsize to @csum_size In fact @csum_sectorsize is only used in the declaration, and the implementation is already using @csum_size instead. - Involved comments and simple function/variable names - btrfs_free_space_ctrl::sectorsize to blocksize - btrfs_mkfs_config::sectorsize to blocksize The following one is not changed yet, as it is part of on-disk format, thus will be changed in a dedicate patch. - btrfs_super_block::sectorsize The following one will not be changed: - btrfs_chunk::sector_size - btrfs_device_item::sector_size As "sector size" is correct terminology for minimum block IO size for a device. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
"--sectorsize" Btrfs uses the terminology "sectorsize" for the minimum data allocation size, which is very different from other filesystems, and can be a little confusing with the kernel block io sector size (which is the minimum block io size, and is fixed to 512 bytes). Let's start migrating mkfs.btrfs and its documentation to use the more common terminology instead. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
"blocksize" To align with other filesystems, with extra mentioning of the older "sectorsize" terminology to reduce confusion. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
This on-disk format rename is to keep the terminology aligned to other filesystems. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Since day 1 of btrfs, we use the name "sector size" to indicate the
minimum data unit size (from btrfs_super_block::sectorsize).
But all other file systems use "block size" to indicate the minimum data
unit size, and inside kernel, a sector is used to describe the minimal
IO block size for a block device.
Furthermore kernel sector size is fixed to 512, and different block
devices have different sector sizes, from the older 512 sector sized
HDDs, to modern day flash devices that are even pushing for 16K sector
size.
This has brought quite some confusiong when we need to co-operate with
other fs/mm people.
I believe it's time to do the migration for btrfs-progs first, then do
it inside the kernel, before we're pushing for iomap support.