From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:54:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:53:55 -0500 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:42505 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:53:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3BF23D01.F7E879E8@evision-ventures.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:44:33 +0100 From: Martin Dalecki Reply-To: dalecki@evision.ag X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ptb@it.uc3m.es CC: linux kernel Subject: Re: blocks or KB? (was: .. current meaning of blk_size array) In-Reply-To: <200111131851.fADIpTN20263@oboe.it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Peter T. Breuer" wrote: > > Let me put it more plainly. Martin Daleki + rumour assures me that the > blk_size array nowadays measure in blocks not KB, yet to me it seems that sectors = 512 per default blocks = 1024 per default. Never said anything else. Look at the initialization point for the arrays. They all use constants which you can look up in the kernel headers. ./linux/fs.h:#define BLOCK_SIZE_BITS 10 ./linux/fs.h:#define BLOCK_SIZE (1< it doesn't. Look at this code from ll_rw_blk.c in 2.4.13: -- - phone: +49 214 8656 283 - job: eVision-Ventures AG, LEV .de (MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN!) - langs: de_DE.ISO8859-1, en_US, pl_PL.ISO8859-2, last ressort: ru_RU.KOI8-R