Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:34:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:34:17 -0500 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:38115 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:34:07 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:34:03 +0100 (MET) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, axboe@suse.de Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] 2.4.1 can't mount ext2 CD-ROM Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zzed@cyberdude.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > A value of hardsect_size[] means: this is the smallest size > the hardware can work with. It is therefore a serious mistake > just to come with "a good guess". This value is used only You are defeating the entire purpose of having a hardware sector size independently from the software block size. And 2kB is a valid guess, apart from the drives that do 512 byte transfers too 2kB is really the smallest transfer we can do. : And 2kB is a valid guess Strange. The twelve or so CD readers I have here are all able to read 512-byte sectors. I am quite willing to believe that hardware exists that is unable to, but it is a bad idea to refuse to mount filesystems just because of some "good guess" that was not so good at all. > to reject impossible sizes, and everywhere the kernel accepts 0 > meaning "don't know". [Minor correction to my previous note: hardsect_size[MAJOR_NR] = NULL; is fine, putting 512 is fine as well, but putting 0 does not work because of the get_hardsect_size() that doesnt check for 0.] So put 0 and sure anyone can submit I/O on the size that they want. Now the driver has to support padding reads, or gathering data to do a complete block write. This is silly. Sr should support 512b transfers just fine, but only because I added the necessary _hacks_ to support it. sd doesn't right now for instance. Please calm down. Removing this sr_hardsizes nonsense is a good idea today. No padding reads involved. If you disagree, please go slowly and state very explicitly why you think I should be unable to mount ext2 filesystems with a block size smaller than 2048 on my SCSI CD drive. Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/