Hi,
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> These days I have as background activity the construction
> of the corresponding patch for 2.4. Maybe we can start 2.5
> without these arrays and with large device numbers.
I started something like this a few months ago, I was at the point to boo
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:11:52PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> One more question that has probably been asked a lot: why are the
> various fields of a device splatted across half a dozen tables instead
> of being collected together in a struct and accessed through one table?
Yes, this has be
Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:33:20AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Oct 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
>
> > > [you sounded as if you noticed a discrepancy somewhere - so I expected:
> > > foo.c uses this in line 123 but bar.c uses that in line 666.]
> >
> > No,
> [you sounded as if you noticed a discrepancy somewhere - so I expected:
> foo.c uses this in line 123 but bar.c uses that in line 666.]
Don't always expect me to make sense - I have good days and I have bad
days. This is a bad day. Wading through the block code got me in a bad
mood, and I mis
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:33:20AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > [you sounded as if you noticed a discrepancy somewhere - so I expected:
> > foo.c uses this in line 123 but bar.c uses that in line 666.]
>
> No, I'm just trying to understand the m
Daniel Phillips:
>>> After staring at the block device code for, um, quite a long time, I
>>> came to the conclusion that blk_size stores one less than the number of
>>> 512 byte blocks on a device. Is this true?
No.
>> Um, slight revision: they wouldn't be blocks, they'd be 'sectors', and
>>
6 matches
Mail list logo
