k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>Personally, I'd like to avoid restrictions like
> "thus preventing the use of sectors maller than 512 bytes"
>there's no reason for it.
Well, one reason is that you can still do (some) calculations with
block addresses without overflowing integer arithmetic.
>Most of the kernel doesn't however, and just assumes (where it isn't
>assuming that everything is DEV_BSIZE) that the sector size must be bigger
>(or the same), never smaller. That's poor.
It's a reasonable compromise.
>Using byte offsets everywhere (outside the filesystem code, I don't
>want to alter any of that) would remove that restriction, and as you
>say otherwise is conceptually identical to what you want.
Not what I want, but what I have. Other than providing support for
non-existing hardware for higher software layers that also can't
handle it, there is no advantage in converting everything into
byte addresses.
>It also means less translations, they only ever need to be made when
I am very sure that this will not reduce the number of translations.
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
