On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 04:04:23 +0000 David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:22:24AM +0000, Julian Yon wrote: > > > It's not weird, and there is a gain; it's for compatibility with > > > large amounts of deployed code that assumes all devices have > > > 512-byte blocks. > > > > If code makes that assumption, how does the reported block size > > affect that? Lying is illogical. Code either assumes a specific > > size (and ignores what you tell it), or it believes what it's > > told. Either way, dishonesty gains nothing. > > If code just blindly makes that assumption, it's ignoring what's being > reported. You appear to have just agreed with me, which makes me wonder what I'm missing, given you continue as though you disagree. > I assume there is or was code in Windows (like we used to have code in > NetBSD) that would check the sector size and refuse to run if it > wasn't 512. IMHO any time you do the same thing as Windows, you're almost certainly doing it wrong. > However, we're talking about hardware here, so you have to also > consider the possibility that the drive firmware reports 512 because > that's what someone coded up back in 1992 and nobody got around to > fixing it. If that doesn't count as broken, what does? (Also, gosh, when did 1992 become so long ago?) Julian -- 3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) <pgp.2012%jry.me@localhost>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature