Subject: Re: Supporting sector size != DEV_BSIZE on lfs
To: Trevin Beattie <>
From: Konrad Schroder <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/19/2002 13:46:30
> This is taking me a long time, partly because I'm not familiar with lfs at
> all, and also because it looks like LFS uses a whole lot more data in
> sectors.  (Contrast with FFS, where most fs data is in terms of fragments.)

In LFSv2, all of the addressing should be in fragments (though
i_ffs_blocks is in sectors, like FFS); but you're right that in version 1
filesystems everything is defined in terms of sectors.

Believe me when I say I know how frustrating that can be :^)

>   needed = fsb + btofsb(...) + fsbtodb(...);
>   Whatever the units of fsb are (expected to be), btofsb given a number of
> frags, and fsbtodb gives a number of sectors.
> Is the last item a bug?  Since the next statement compares 'needed' to

Yes, I think it is a bug.  I'll look at it tonight, though I think that
just putting the first btofsb inside the fsbtodb might take care of it.

						Konrad Schroder