Re: Block protocol incompatibilities with 4K logical sector size disks

[Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/09/2024 16:23, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:19:56PM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > On 02/09/2024 09:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Thanks for your input.  I would also like to hear from the blktap and
> > > Windows PV drivers maintainers, as the change that I'm proposing here
> > > will require changes to their implementations.
> > So IIUC you are proposing to refuse to connect to a frontend that sets
> > feature-large-sector-size if sector-size != 512? Is that right?
> Is is worth retrofitting this into existing backends?  My suggestion
> would be to make `feature-large-sector-size` not mandatory to expose a
> sector-size != 512, but I wouldn't go as far as refusing to connect to
> frontends that expose the feature.  I have no idea which frontends
> might expose `feature-large-sector-size` but still be compatible with
> Linux blkback regarding sector-size != 512 (I know the Windows one
> isn't).
>
> I think we have reached consensus with Anthony on the approach, so it
> might be best if I just draft a proposal change to blkif.h because
> that's less ambiguous than attempting to describe it here.
Yes, I think that would be best at this point.