[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:0.108 / U:11.704 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site