Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:52:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:51:52 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.122]:65032 "HELO smtp.uc3m.es") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:51:36 -0500 From: "Peter T. Breuer" Message-Id: <200111131851.fADIpTN20263@oboe.it.uc3m.es> Subject: blocks or KB? (was: .. current meaning of blk_size array) In-Reply-To: <200111131508.fADF8Yi09728@oboe.it.uc3m.es> from "Peter T. Breuer" at "Nov 13, 2001 04:08:34 pm" To: "linux kernel" Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:51:29 +0100 (MET) X-Anonymously-To: Reply-To: ptb@it.uc3m.es X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 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 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 it doesn't. Look at this code from ll_rw_blk.c in 2.4.13: unsigned long maxsector = (blk_size[major][MINOR(bh->b_rdev)] << 1) + 1; and this comment: * blk_size contains the size of all block-devices in units of 1024 * byte sectors: so blk_size measures in KB. Where do I see it wrong? Is everybody talking about 2.4.14 and 2.4.15? No .. it's just the same in 2.4.14: if (blk_size[major]) minorsize = blk_size[major][MINOR(bh->b_rdev)]; if (minorsize) { unsigned long maxsector = (minorsize << 1) + 1; KB! Or is it the case that sectors don't mean 512B? Peter - 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/