Subject: Re: Supporting sector size != DEV_BSIZE on lfs
To: Trevin Beattie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Konrad Schroder <email@example.com>
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.