Hitoshi Ozeki wrote: > Hello, all. > > Okuji-san wrote about the different(128-2048 bytes) sector-size support: > I think there are two different ways to address this issue. One way > is to use > variable sector size. This looks elegant, but this affects the disk > device > API very much. The other is to use fixed sector size, as it is for > now, but > align boundaries at a device driver level. > (omit) > I don't know which way is better. What do you think? > > I wrote in last article: > I think to set the GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE as the least. > (As far as I know, The least hardware sector size is > 128 bytes.) and add the variable to 'struct grub_disk'. > Its variable stores > sector size(blocks per sector). > > In addition, Let me talk about the recent PC-9800 patch. > I use the GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE in a meaning of default sector size(=512). > and add the variable 'sector_size' to 'struct grub_disk'. > GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE is used to initialize the 'sector_size'. > GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE is replaced with 'sector_size' in most case.
Just a quick comment. Should we one day have direct support for CD-ROM's or such devices which have larger sector sizes, I would propose that this information should be dynamic and device specific. This change probably causes some issues about how should grub be installed on devices having sector size != 512. And should there be emulation layer for 512 byte sector size? At least El Torito does provide this... _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
