From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:56:38 +0200
Message-ID: <46F0AC06.1030208@gmail.com>
References: <20070911060349.993975297@sgi.com> <200709161853.12050.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709171510280.29993@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <200709181116.22573.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709181126330.16478@woody.linux-foundation.org> <20070918191853.GB7541@v2.random> <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709181239320.16478@woody.linux-foundation.org> <46F09A80.8020605@gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709182049480.16478@woody.linux-foundation.org> <46F0A4FB.2020901@gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709182131560.16478@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
	David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@gmail.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@gmail.com>,
	swin wang <wangswin@gmail.com>, totty.lu@gmail.com,
	hugh@veritas.com, joern@lazybastard.org
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1754082AbXISE6A@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709182131560.16478@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On 09/19/2007 06:33 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Rene Herman wrote:

>> I do feel larger blocksizes continue to make sense in general though. Packet
>> writing on CD/DVD is a problem already today since the hardware needs 32K or
>> 64K blocks and I'd expect to see more of these and similiar situations when
>> flash gets (even) more popular which it sort of inevitably is going to be.
> 
> .. that's what scatter-gather exists for.
> 
> What's so hard with just realizing that physical memory isn't contiguous?
> 
> It's why we have MMU's. It's why we have scatter-gather. 

So if I understood that right, you'd suggest to deal with devices with 
larger physical blocksizes at some level above the current blocklayer.

Not familiar enough with either block or fs to be able to argue that 
effectively...

Rene.