On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, David Balazic wrote:
> Did you try scsi-emulation on IDE disks ?
Don't be silly.
That emulation is from scsi-packet to atapi-packet.
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
ASL Kernel Development
-
ASL,
> "Michael" == Michael E Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael,
Michael> It looks like the numbers we picked for our respective IOCTLs
Michael> conflict. I think I can change mine to the next higher since
Michael> your patch seems to have been around longer.
If you could pick another
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Maybe. I think that you'll find that these blocks are
> relative to the start of the partition, not relative
> to the start of the disk.
>
> So if you add a 1-block partition that contains the last
> sector of the disk, all should be fine.
>
Ok. U
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So if you add a 1-block partition that contains the last
> sector of the disk, all should be fine.
>
Oh! I didn't get your meaning before. I think I understand now. The
problem with this is that the tests for block writeability are not done on
a p
> My patch has nothing to do with partitioning.
Yes, you already said that, and I understand you very well.
My suggestion, and I have not checked the code to make sure,
but off-hand it seems to me that it should work,
is to use a partition.
> Disk with 1001 blocks. Hardware 512-byte sector size.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But it changes the idea of odd and even.
> A partition can start on an odd sector.
>
That is orthogonal to the issue that I am trying to solve with my patch.
My code is trying to make it possible to access sectors at the _end_ of
the disk that you c
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, David Balazic wrote:
> Michael E Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) worte :
>
> > That has been tried. No, it does not work. :-) Using Scsi-Generic is the
> > only way so far found, but of course, it only works on SCSI drives.
>
> Did you try scsi-emulation on IDE disks ?
I think tha
> I have one additional user space only idea:
> have you tried raw-io? bind a raw device to the partition, IIRC raw-io
> is always in 512 byte units.
Steven Tweedie responded to my question about that:
> Raw IO is subject to the same limits as other IO, because
> ultimately it uses the same rout
Michael E Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) worte :
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> > I have one additional user space only idea:
> > have you tried raw-io? bind a raw device to the partition, IIRC raw-io
> > is always in 512 byte units.
>
> That has been tried. No, it does not work.
Martin,
It looks like the numbers we picked for our respective IOCTLs conflict.
I think I can change mine to the next higher since your patch seems to
have been around longer. What is the general way to deal with these
conflicts?
--
Michael
On 13 Feb 2001, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> I have one additional user space only idea:
> have you tried raw-io? bind a raw device to the partition, IIRC raw-io
> is always in 512 byte units.
That has been tried. No, it does not work. :-) Using Scsi-Generic is the
only way so far found, but of
> > While we can read and write to this sector in the kernel
> > partition code, we have
> > no way for userspace to update this partition block.
>
> Are you sure?
I'm not sure, but when I asked about this in January, I suggested having an
IOCTL that get/set blksize_size[MAJOR(dev)][MINOR(dev)]
> "Andries" == Andries Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andries> Anyway, an ioctl just to read the last sector is too silly.
Andries> An ioctl to change the blocksize is more reasonable.
I actually sent you a patch implementing this some time ago, remember?
We need it for XFS...
Patch
Michael E Brown wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyway, an ioctl just to read the last sector is too silly.
> > An ioctl to change the blocksize is more reasonable.
>
> That may be better, I don't know. That's why this is an RFC. Are there any
> possible races with that method? It seems to me that you might ad
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 14 00:37:25 2001
> Look at the addpart utility in the util-linux package.
> It will allow you to add a partition disjoint from
> previously existing partitions.
> And since a partition can start on an odd sector,
> this should allow you to al
Hi Andries!
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The block device uses 1K blocksize, and will prevent userspace from
> > seeing the odd-block at the end of the disk, if the disk is odd-size.
> >
> > IA-64 architecture defines a new partitioning scheme where there is a
> > backup
> The block device uses 1K blocksize, and will prevent userspace from
> seeing the odd-block at the end of the disk, if the disk is odd-size.
>
> IA-64 architecture defines a new partitioning scheme where there is a
> backup of the partition table header in the last sector of the disk. While
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
