On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06:47PM +0200, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Le 17/08/2015 15:54, Theodore Ts'o a écrit :
> >
> > It's cast in stone. There are too many places all over the kernel,
> > especially in a huge number of file systems, which assume that the
> > sector size is 512 bytes. So above
Le 17/08/2015 15:54, Theodore Ts'o a écrit :
>
> It's cast in stone. There are too many places all over the kernel,
> especially in a huge number of file systems, which assume that the
> sector size is 512 bytes. So above the block layer, the sector size
> is always going to be 512.
Could this
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06:47PM +0200, Brice Goglin wrote:
Le 17/08/2015 15:54, Theodore Ts'o a écrit :
It's cast in stone. There are too many places all over the kernel,
especially in a huge number of file systems, which assume that the
sector size is 512 bytes. So above the block
Le 17/08/2015 15:54, Theodore Ts'o a écrit :
It's cast in stone. There are too many places all over the kernel,
especially in a huge number of file systems, which assume that the
sector size is 512 bytes. So above the block layer, the sector size
is always going to be 512.
Could this be a
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:23:04PM +0530, Navin P wrote:
>
> Why is SECTOR_SIZE 512 ?
>
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/ide.h#L118
>
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/device-mapper.h#L548
>
> 548 #define SECTOR_SHIFT 9
>
> I was looking at disks with
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:23:04PM +0530, Navin P wrote:
Why is SECTOR_SIZE 512 ?
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/ide.h#L118
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/device-mapper.h#L548
548 #define SECTOR_SHIFT 9
I was looking at disks with
6 matches
Mail list logo
