[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: blocks or KB? (was: .. current meaning of blk_size array)
On Nov 15, 2001  13:31 -0500, William Park wrote:
> I looked around, and 1KB block size is hard-coded in too many places.
> For example, function 'generic_make_request()' in
> 'drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c' assumes 512 sector and 1024 block size:

Yes, it _would_ be nice to clean this up, but it is a lot of work. You
could check out Anton's patch (posted today) for this as a starting point.

> Is changing 'int' to 'u64' (and all the dependent code) enough to get
> 64-bit block devices? I'm willing to do the work.

It is already done, please don't duplicate. Search for 64 bit block
devices around June of this year for a URL to Jens'/Ben's patch. Please
repost the URL, as several people have asked.

> I don't care about filesystem; that's the job for maintainer of particular
> filesystem. I understand XFS is 64-bit, so I can use that.

FYI, ext2/ext3 _should_ be OK up to 8TB (possibly 16TB depending on sign
issues) filesystem, with individual files at 2TB, when using a 4kB block
size. However, there appear to be other issues like VFS and page cache
which may have problems at this point as well.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger

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 13:18    [W:0.076 / U:8.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site