Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:41:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:41:20 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.123]:10767 "HELO smtp.uc3m.es") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:41:13 -0500 From: "Peter T. Breuer" Message-Id: <200111142041.fAEKfBN15594@oboe.it.uc3m.es> Subject: Re: blocks or KB? (was: .. current meaning of blk_size array) In-Reply-To: <3BF23D01.F7E879E8@evision-ventures.com> from "Martin Dalecki" at "Nov 14, 2001 10:44:33 am" To: dalecki@evision.ag Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:41:11 +0100 (MET) Cc: ptb@it.uc3m.es, "linux kernel" 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 "Martin Dalecki wrote:" > "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. I know that! But it's irrelevant. What I need to know is if blk_size is still counting in KB, or if it has switched to blocks. > Never said anything else. Err .. you said that blk_size is now measured in blocks, not KB. You said thet the rumour is true. "A month of sundays ago Martin Dalecki wrote:" > "Peter T. Breuer" wrote: > > Is blk_size[][] supposed to contain the size in KB or blocks? > There is no rumor it's in blocks. Maybe I misinterpret what you write. I interpret it as meaning "the rumour is not a rumour but a fact. It is in blocks". > Look at the initialization point for the arrays. They all use constants > which you can look up in the kernel headers. I _know_ that. It's irrelevant. The point is that if blk_size counts in KB, then the size of a device cannot reach more that 2^32 * 2^10 = 2^42 = 4TB. I'd personally say 2TB, becuase the int blk_size number is signed. That's rumoured not to be the case, and the max size of a device is supposed to be about 8 to 16TB. Let's suppose the rumour is true .. So we deduce that one has to assign a different meaning for the blk_size array. "count in blocks" is how the rumour goes. That way you can get 4 times higher sizes .. all the way to 8 or 16TB per device. And this is what is rumoured to be the case. Is it or is it not so? A straight answer from the list would be nice! > ./linux/fs.h:#define BLOCK_SIZE_BITS 10 > ./linux/fs.h:#define BLOCK_SIZE (1< Which means 1024 bytes for blk_size as default value. But so what? That doesn't answer the question of whether blk_size is in blocks or not. > > it doesn't. Look at this code from ll_rw_blk.c in 2.4.[14]: Look at it: if (blk_size[major]) minorsize = blk_size[major][MINOR(bh->b_rdev)]; if (minorsize) { unsigned long maxsector = (minorsize << 1) + 1; This clearly hardcodes blk_size as measuring in units of 2 sectors, no matter what we set for blksize. It should be, in my view unsigned long maxsector = minorsize * blksize_size[major][MINOR(bh->b_rdev] + 1; or no device can be larger than 4TB. And neither can a filesystem, and neither can a file ... Now, I know I can write my own generic_make_request() code, but I have no intention of maintaining it through different kernel versions just to get the right size measurement. Besides, it's everyone's problem. Persuade me that this is not a bug, and an important one at that :-) Hellloooooo everybody! Linux cannot manage partitions greater than 4TB, ha ha ha hhhhhaaaa! ;-) I at least am getting up to devicesizes at the 8TB range. Best wishes! 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/