From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1HcJXJ-00087B-SO for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:01:49 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HcJXH-000857-D5 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:01:47 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HcJXG-00084m-Jb for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:01:46 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcJXG-00084i-7k for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:01:46 -0400 Received: from mx07.ms.so-net.ne.jp ([202.238.82.7]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HcJSz-00008L-4B for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:57:21 -0400 Received: from temjin (pddf819.gifunt01.ap.so-net.ne.jp [218.221.248.25]) by mx07.ms.so-net.ne.jp with ESMTP id l3DAuwxi018568 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:57:12 +0900 (JST) From: "Hitoshi Ozeki" To: "'The development of GRUB 2'" Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:57:18 +0900 Message-ID: <000001c77dba$8784e0d0$030010ac@ozeki> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6822 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: AcdxbtZb8nloLKgWSO2dDa5xepMQRAKK437AAIck1WA= In-Reply-To: <000001c77ba1$fb0246d0$030010ac@ozeki> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-detected-kernel: Solaris 9.1 Subject: RE: I write a patch for Japanese NEC i386 old computers. X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:01:47 -0000 Hello, all. Okuji-san wrote about the different(128-2048 bytes) sector-size support: I think there are two different ways to address this issue. One way is to use variable sector size. This looks elegant, but this affects the disk device API very much. The other is to use fixed sector size, as it is for now, but align boundaries at a device driver level. (omit) I don't know which way is better. What do you think? I wrote in last article: I think to set the GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE as the least. (As far as I know, The least hardware sector size is 128 bytes.) and add the variable to 'struct grub_disk'. Its variable stores sector size(blocks per sector). In addition, Let me talk about the recent PC-9800 patch. I use the GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE in a meaning of default sector size(=512). and add the variable 'sector_size' to 'struct grub_disk'. GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE is used to initialize the 'sector_size'. GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE is replaced with 'sector_size' in most case.