[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: [PATCH] msdos: add support for large disks

    -----Original Message-----
    From: OGAWA Hirofumi []
    Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:02 AM
    To: Andrew Morton
    Cc: Daniel Taylor;
    Subject: Re: [PATCH] msdos: add support for large disks

    Andrew Morton <> writes:

    >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:17:47 -0800
    >> "Daniel Taylor" <> wrote:
    >>> In order to use disks larger than 2TiB on Windows XP, it is necessary
    >>> to use 4096-byte logical sectors in an MBR.

    > BTW, you can use GPT instead?

    Windows XP does not support GPT, although Vista/7 do.

    > And to make sure, "4096-byte logical sectors in an MBR" is meaning, the
    storage must be supporting 4096B and is using it?

    The drives report physical/logical sector sizes of 4096 bytes, which the
    kernel correctly detects. 32-bit fields in the MBR are then sufficient for
    storage capacites >2TiB (up to 16 TiB), and the storage in struct
    parsed_partitions is already sector_t.

    >>> Although the kernel storage and functions called from msdos.c used
    >>> "sector_t" internally, msdos.c still used u32 variables, which
    >>> results in the ability to handle XP-compatible large disks.
    >>> This patch changes the internal variables to "sector_t".
    >> Please Cc OGAWA Hirofumi <> and myself on
    >> this work.

    >> BTW, to make sure, this is fs/partitions/, not fs/fat/. So, I'm not sure,
    my knowledge is enough or not, and/or you just missed fs/partitions/.

    This is definitely a change in fs/partitions (fs/partitions/msdos.c). I
    could not find a maintainer for fs/partitions, but FAT and MBR are vaguely
    related. Andrew Morton asked me to copy you on the change, also.

    > Well, I'll make time to check. BTW, basically it sounds good to me except
    implementation details. But, I'd like to compare > and check other implement
    a bit if possible. IIRC, this is not a well defined specification.

    Sanity checking patches is a good idea, particularly from someone who has no
    other significant change in place.

    > Thanks.
    OGAWA Hirofumi <>

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-04 00:03    [W:0.022 / U:90.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site