On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:06:11PM -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 08:59 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> ...
> > I wonder if this change will end up ruining things for the lunatic
> > fringe issuing these kinds of IOs? Maybe the get_block call could
> > take a block count rather than a byte count?
>
> Yes. I thought about it too.. I wanted to pass "block count" instead
> of "byte count". Right now it does ..
>
> bh->b_size = 1 << inode->i_blkbits;
> call get_block();
>
> First thing get_block() does is
> blocks = bh->b_size >> inode->i_blkbits;
>
> All, the unnecessary shifting around for nothing :(
Yeah, pretty silly really, but theres not much choice if the
goal is to keep this simple. Oh well.
> But, I ended up doing "byte count" just to avoid confusion of
> asking in "blocks" getting back in "bytes".
Understood.
> I have no problem making b_size as "size_t" to handle 64-bit.
> But again, if we are fiddling with buffer_head - may be its time
> to look at alternative to "buffer_head" with the information exactly
> we need for getblock() ?
That is a much bigger change - I'm not in a position to make the
call on whether thats in everyones best interests. However, I do
want to make sure we don't regress anything, so I guess the u32
to size_t switch probably should be made to resolve this issue.
Thanks again for following up on this.
cheers.
--
Nathan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
