[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Re: Hardsector size support in 2.4 and 2.5
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.041 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site