Subject: Re: 64-bit daddr_t problems with libsa
To: Simon Burge <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
From: Luke Mewburn <lukem@wasabisystems.com>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/30/2003 13:58:53
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:46:38PM +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
| Using shifts and masks instead of multiplies and divides still ends up
| too large. Also note that it's double indirect block support that I was
| suggesting we (optionally) remove, not all indirect block support.
|
| Here's sizes for alpha.
|
| Current unmodified bootxx_ffs:
| -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb wsrc 8096 Jan 30 12:42 bootxx_ffs
| checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym...
| MAXIMUM LOAD SIZE EXCEEDED (7800 > 7680)
|
| bootxx_ffs using shifts and masks:
| -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb wsrc 7800 Jan 30 12:40 bootxx_ffs
| checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym...
| MAXIMUM LOAD SIZE EXCEEDED (8096 > 7680)
|
| bootxx_ffs with no double indirect block support
| -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb wsrc 7504 Jan 30 12:44 bootxx_ffs
| checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym... OK
|
| bootxx_ffs using 32bit daddr_t
| -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb wsrc 7440 Jan 30 12:42 bootxx_ffs
| checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym... OK
This looks like a winner...
| bootxx_ffs using 32bit daddr_t and no double indirect block support
| -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb wsrc 7184 Jan 30 12:35 bootxx_ffs
| checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym... OK