Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:52:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:52:09 -0500 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:43508 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:51:59 -0500 Importance: Normal Subject: Hardsector size support in 2.4 and 2.5 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: evms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Mark Peloquin" Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:51:44 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NM201/04/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 11/12/2001 12:51:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I was wondering if 2.5 will *really* support different hard sector sizes. Today the hardsect array in the kernel seems to serve little purpose. Drivers fill it in, but then what? It does not appear to be used in any io path computations as illustrated by code in submit_bh and generic_make_request which use a few hardcoded shifts by 9 when dealing with sector sizes. Is the hardsect array on the way *in* or the way *out* of the kernel? Will 2.5 take the real hardsector value into account? Or can we expect everything to be handled in 512 byte multiples (as we do today)? Thanks. Mark Peloquin - 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/