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, 22 May 2002 03:57:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 03:57:27 -0400 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:29453 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 03:57:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEB4084.90806@evision-ventures.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:53:56 +0200 From: Martin Dalecki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020419 X-Accept-Language: en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Vojtech Pavlik , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 IDE 65 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.