Subject: Re: Non-512-byte sectors
To: Chuck Silvers <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/14/1999 12:13:48
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> (I'm assuming Bill was talking about filesystem access to non-512-byte-sector
> devices... raw access is entirely different, and I haven't looked at that yet.
> it should just be a matter of setting b_blkno differently somewhere in the
> physio() path.)
> er, also someone needs to go thru all the device strategy routines and make
> sure they interpret b_blkno the new way instead of the old way. ok, so
> there's probably a bunch of work left to be done now that I think about it.
My main thought was what did we want to do in terms of Koji Imada's three
proposals (which have been languishing in PR's 3790, 3791, and 3792).
To summarize, they are:
3790: File system sector size == block io unit == physical sector size
3791: block io unit == DEV_BSIZE, fs's can do what they want, and
drivers adjust i/o for different size devices
3792: block io unit == physical sector size and file system sector size
can be != block io unit
I gather then either 3790 or 3792 is the consensus?
Does anyone have recent diffs?