:I thought this quote was interesting. I'm wondering how much work will
:be involved for you guys to accommodate this proposed change:
Minimal work. UFS has no problem with a different sector size (unless
I broke something with recent commits, anyway). The kernel has no
problem with it either, since things like CD's already use a fairly
large (2K) sector size.
Most of the arguments quoted are incorrect. The one about the ECC
length is correct, but the inter-sector gap argument doesn't apply
to most modern drives because they already do full-track reads and
writes, without gaps between sectors. DMA transfers and block I/O
operations already do much larger I/O's.
-Matt
