On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 02:10:22PM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > Also you wouldn't have to remove or disable the IOSSS module (possible > > according to TT) and at the same time effectively kill the slave blocking > > mechanism... no block devices no slave blocks ;-) hehe > > Slave blocks are NOT a bad thing themselves: the inconsiderate usage TT > did with them under SMSQ/E _IS_ the actual problem. I will use them BUT > only in a few cases: when less than 2048 bytes are requested for a read, > thus avoiding to re-read each time 2048 bytes of data (you can't read > less on a CD) from the device each time a software reads only two bytes... > For bigger transfers, slave blocks are less effective (moreover this > type of big transfer is less likely to occur more than one time on the > same file/blocks).
also consider the very long seek times of CD drives and the polling nature of IDE the drivers and you will definitively require some caching. Btw whichever sort of drivers you use you are not forced to use the SMSQ implementation of slave blocks.. the problem is just that TT did it for all his drivers. > > .../... but the most important gain of all > > would be the ability of drivers to be written in high level languages. > > This is not an issue as far as I am concerned (please Richard, keep > cool ! ;-) you see, its not only me who is asking for this feature. I am convinced once it is reasonably possible to write drivers in SBasic and 'c' we will have an abundance. Bye Richard
