[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090511134534.GA32678@mars.virtualiron.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:45:34 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek <konrad@...tualiron.com>
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>, tj@...nel.org
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, jeff@...zik.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Mauelshagen@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: add alt_size
.. snip ..
> > Also, values with magic block counts, while there is no way to get the
> > blocksize with the same interface, are pretty weird. I think the
> > current "size" attribute is just a bug.
>
> Logical block size is fixed at 512 bytes. Offset and size are always
> represented in multiples of 512 bytes and only get converted to
> hardware block size in the lld.
That interpretation is at odds with the work that Martin Peterson is
doing with the 4K support. In the e-mail titled: "Re: [PATCH 4 of 8] sd:
Physical block size and alignment support",
Message-ID:<yq1ab67b51p.fsf@...mon.lab.mkp.net> he says:
"
Konrad> about what a 'logical block', and 'physical block' is
Konrad> vs. 'hardware sector' ?
Well, another item on my todo list is to kill the notion of hardware
sector completely. The protocols have been referring to logical blocks
for ages.
It hasn't been a big problem until now because logical block size has
been equal to the hardware sector size. That's no longer a valid
assumption.
"
Are the ATA/SCSI/etc specs at odds with each other about this?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists