[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: add alt_size
- From: Konrad Rzeszutek <konrad virtualiron com>
- To: device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, tj kernel org
- Cc: jens axboe oracle com, jeff garzik org, linux-scsi vger kernel org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, martin petersen oracle com, linux-ide vger kernel org, Mauelshagen redhat com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: add alt_size
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:45:34 -0400
.. 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 sermon 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?
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]