Subject: Re: Block Mail
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com>
From: Michael L. Hitch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/26/1994 19:35:21
On Aug 26, 2:45pm, Mark Gooderum wrote:
> > From: "Michael L. Hitch" <email@example.com>
> > Both the SCSI hard disk (sd*) and CDROM (cd*) drivers take the b_blkno
> > field as the block number of a 512-byte (DEV_BSIZE) block and convert it
> > to the actual block number of the physical block of the disk....
> This jives with the behavior I've seen. Disklabel writes the label
> and reads it, okay, but fsck and newfs barf using the raw device about
> 1/2 way through the disk (because block #'s are doubled...it runs off
> the end of the disk).
If this is on the i386 port, I think this behaviour may be because the
bounds_check_with_label() routine doesn't take into account the physical
block size. At the point that sd.c calls bounds_check_with_label(),
the partition size is in physical sector units, but the block number
and size are in DEV_BSIZE units. The check is not being done correctly.
[I'm not certain how the disk label would be set up for the i386. I
found that the partition size and partition offset had to be in units
of the device physical sector size in order for newfs to work correctly.]
Hmmm - an incorrect or inconsistent partition offset could be rather
dangerous. It could easily cause newfs to write at the wrong spot on
> I would love to help make this work (I've got a couple of older but very
> big 1024 block SCSI drives I scrounged that otherwise work).
> I've played a bit with having physio() stuff the block value into both
> b_lblkno and b_blkno.
I don't think will work - the getblk() routine in kern/vfs_bio.c is
already setting b_lblkno and b_blkno to the specified block. It might
work better if physio() ensured that b_lbkno was zeroed.
> So far it doesn't quite work yet. I still get the symptom that
> I can label the disk, but fsck barfs, and the kernel complains about
> no disk label when first booting.
If fsck is still having problems thinking it's going off the end of
the partition, that problem is probably because bounds_check_with_label()
doesn't take into account the difference in the units between the
partition size and the block number + I/O length.
Michael L. Hitch INTERNET: firstname.lastname@example.org
Office of Systems and Computing Services
Montana State University Bozeman, MT USA