From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HcJlq-0000NC-IC
	for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:16:50 -0400
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HcJlo-0000Mk-3B
	for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:16:48 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HcJll-0000MC-NT
	for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:16:46 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcJll-0000Lx-Ig
	for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:16:45 -0400
Received: from pne-smtpout3-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.111])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <chaac@nic.fi>) id 1HcJhU-0003Sp-HH
	for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:12:20 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (88.193.32.97) by pne-smtpout3-sn2.hy.skanova.net
	(7.2.075) id 46153C2700062A0F for grub-devel@gnu.org;
	Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:12:17 +0200
Message-ID: <461F65AD.1020400@nic.fi>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:12:45 +0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vesa_J=E4=E4skel=E4inen?= <chaac@nic.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: The development of GRUB 2 <grub-devel@gnu.org>
References: <000001c77dba$8784e0d0$030010ac@ozeki>
In-Reply-To: <000001c77dba$8784e0d0$030010ac@ozeki>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-detected-kernel: Solaris 8 (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 <grub-devel@gnu.org>
List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 <grub-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel>,
	<mailto:grub-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/grub-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:grub-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grub-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel>,
	<mailto:grub-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:16:48 -0000

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...