On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 09:55:28AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Again: I am not talking about the bt_meta_sectorsize removal being a > problem! Why do you comment on the patch doing that then? > I will repeat it once more: this patchset removes the check that > guarantees the the underlying block device has a sector size that is > valid for the sector size the filesystem devices are configured to > use. That is not acceptible - a 512 byte sector filesystem device > must not be able to mount on a hard 4kB sector device because the > moment we do a 512 byte aligned IO to the log device, the bdev will > give an EIO error and we'll shut down the filesystem. Yes, and I've already agree to not drop that check after you initially pointed that out. So I'm really confused on what you are trying to comment on for this patch.
