Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Re: Hardsector size support in 2.4 and 2.5 | From | "Mark Peloquin" <> | Date | Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:05:19 -0600 |
| |
Martin Dalecki wrote: > > I was wondering if 2.5 will *really* support different hard sector > > sizes. Today the hardsect array in the kernel seems to serve > > little purpose. Drivers fill it in, but then what? It does not appear > > to be used in any io path computations as illustrated by code > > in submit_bh and generic_make_request which use a few > > hardcoded shifts by 9 when dealing with sector sizes. > > > > Is the hardsect array on the way *in* or the way *out* of the > > kernel? Will 2.5 take the real hardsector value into account? > > Or can we expect everything to be handled in 512 byte > > multiples (as we do today)?
> It is on it's way out, since:
That is good, then the code should be less confusing.
> 1. Most hardware sec sizes are obscelny lower that the minimal logical > sizes those days (512 ver. 4096 page size), > so the tuning there doesn't matter.
> 2. All of it is "tuning", which can be handled generically on higher > levels. (Like setting FS blocksize....)
> 3. The hard limits are handled on device driver level anyway (best > example here are the odd fs block sizes for iso9660 filesystem).
So any block device, can always expect to receive buffer heads whose b_rsector value represents the offset from the beginning of that device in 512 byte multiples? And this will continue to hold true in 2.5 as well?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |