[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.17 IDE 65 (Martin Dalecki)  wrote on 22.05.02 in <>:

    > Uz.ytkownik Linus Torvalds napisa?:
    > > On Tue, 21 May 2002, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
    > >
    > >>>They aren't there to be respected by the ll_rw_blk layer - if some layer
    > >>>above it has created a request larger than the hard sector size, THAT is
    > >>>the problem, and there is nothing ll_rw_blk can do (except maybe BUG() on
    > >>>it, but I don't think we've ever really seen those kinds of bugs).
    > >>
    > >>Hum, I'm confused here - shouldn't that be "if some layer above it has
    > >>created a request SMALLER than the hard sector size"? Or better a
    > >>request that is not a multiple of hard sector size?
    > >
    > >
    > > Yes, yes, you're obviously right, and I just had a brainfart when writing
    > > it. It should be basically: "higher levels must make sure on their own
    > > that all requests are nice integer multiples of the hw sector-size", and
    > > ll_rw_blk should never have to care.
    > Please add the following to the bag:
    > "We never saw a filesystem with less then 512 byte sectors,
    > so let's assume this is our request size unit." (CP/M uses 256...)
    > Not that pretty at all.

    That's why Alan said 512-byte FAT on 2k MO needs loop.

    Of course, way back when, I used 2k FAT on MO and it "just worked" ... no
    idea if that would still work today, but FAT *can* at least in principle
    do larger sizes.

    MfG Kai
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.023 / U:2.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site