Re: I write a patch for Japanese NEC i386 old computers.

["Vesa Jääskeläinen" <chaac@nic.fi>]

Hitoshi Ozeki wrote:
> 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.

Just a quick comment. Should we one day have direct support for CD-ROM's
or such devices which have larger sector sizes, I would propose that
this information should be dynamic and device specific. This change
probably causes some issues about how should grub be installed on
devices having sector size != 512. And should there be emulation layer
for 512 byte sector size? At least El Torito does provide this...