Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> We might need to change the code slightly to express the 4K size in the
>>> various ioctls, but that can happen latter when I run into such a
>>> device. (The current devices supported by this device driver all use
>>> 512 byte blocks.)
>>>
>> My concern is when there are devices that use 4K size blocks instead of
>> 512 byte blocks. Is there anything in the architecture of bd that means
>> they can't easily be supported by this bd driver ?
>>
>
> What about "odd" (in this case not really odd numbers) sector sizes that
> are used on CDs (2336, 2448, 2352)?
>
> What about the 64k physical sector size on BluRay media? Note that we
> currently
> cannot set up a 64k transfer with USCSI on all underlying transports.
>
> DVDs and BluRays support "logical" sector sizes of 2048 bytes but this will
> not work with all constraints as there sometimes is a need for aligned
> transfers.
>
My intent is not that blkdev be the solution for all possible media.
Specifically, it is *not* designed for spinning media. Those weird
(non-power-of-two) sector sizes are not relevant.
blkdev does not support USCSI at all, because its not a SCSI transport.
Its for devices that don't support the SCSI command set at all.
Devices like the ones you mention already are handled by "sd", and are
responsible for a lot of the complexity in sd that I'm hoping to avoid
in blkdev.
-- Garrett
> J?rg
>
>
