Re: In-kernel units for block numbers, etc ...

[mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)]

kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost (Robert Elz) writes:

>Personally, I'd like to avoid restrictions like 
>	"thus preventing the use of sectors maller than 512 bytes"
>there's no reason for it.

Well, one reason is that you can still do (some) calculations with
block addresses without overflowing integer arithmetic.


>Most of the kernel doesn't however, and just assumes (where it isn't
>assuming that everything is DEV_BSIZE) that the sector size must be bigger
>(or the same), never smaller.   That's poor.

It's a reasonable compromise.


>Using byte offsets everywhere (outside the filesystem code, I don't
>want to alter any of that) would remove that restriction, and as you
>say otherwise is conceptually identical to what you want.

Not what I want, but what I have. Other than providing support for
non-existing hardware for higher software layers that also can't
handle it, there is no advantage in converting everything into
byte addresses.


>It also means less translations, they only ever need to be made when

I am very sure that this will not reduce the number of translations.


-- 
-- 
                                Michael van Elst
Internet: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost
                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."