From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 03:10:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 03:10:31 -0400 Received: from khms.westfalen.de ([62.153.201.243]:2750 "EHLO khms.westfalen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 03:10:31 -0400 Date: 23 May 2002 09:01:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <8PRYRufXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <3CEB4084.90806@evision-ventures.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 IDE 65 X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh9 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org dalecki@evision-ventures.com (Martin Dalecki) wrote on 22.05.02 in <3CEB4084.90806@evision-ventures.com>: > Uz.ytkownik Linus Torvalds napisa?: > > On Tue, 21 May 2002, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > > >>>They aren't there to be respected by the ll_rw_blk layer - if some layer > >>>above it has created a request larger than the hard sector size, THAT is > >>>the problem, and there is nothing ll_rw_blk can do (except maybe BUG() on > >>>it, but I don't think we've ever really seen those kinds of bugs). > >> > >>Hum, I'm confused here - shouldn't that be "if some layer above it has > >>created a request SMALLER than the hard sector size"? Or better a > >>request that is not a multiple of hard sector size? > > > > > > Yes, yes, you're obviously right, and I just had a brainfart when writing > > it. It should be basically: "higher levels must make sure on their own > > that all requests are nice integer multiples of the hw sector-size", and > > ll_rw_blk should never have to care. > > Please add the following to the bag: > "We never saw a filesystem with less then 512 byte sectors, > so let's assume this is our request size unit." (CP/M uses 256...) > Not that pretty at all. That's why Alan said 512-byte FAT on 2k MO needs loop. Of course, way back when, I used 2k FAT on MO and it "just worked" ... no idea if that would still work today, but FAT *can* at least in principle do larger sizes. MfG Kai