On Tue, Sep 12 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-09-11 am 21:51 +0200, ysgrifennodd Jens Axboe:
> > Well, as I said, I don't think we ever saw a case that was demonstrably
> > due to the 256 sector issue. And I really don't think it is as obscure a
> > fact that people seem to think it is.
>
> One of the ones I've got saved here is this thread. Paul goes on to
> demonstrate that changing the 255<->256 limit makes 2.0/2.2/2.4 break or
> not break.
I remember Paul's mails, and I'm pretty sure that the 256 sectors wasn't
the issue. This is one of the only cases I remember being reported to
lkml, unfortunately I cannot seem to locate the 2nd part of that
thread...
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
