[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I write a patch for Japanese NEC i386 old computers.

From: Vesa Jääskeläinen
Subject: Re: I write a patch for Japanese NEC i386 old computers.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:12:45 +0300
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070221)

Hitoshi Ozeki wrote:
> Hello, all.
> Okuji-san wrote about the different(128-2048 bytes) sector-size support:
>       I think there are two different ways to address this issue. One way
> is to use
>       variable sector size. This looks elegant, but this affects the disk
> device 
>       API very much. The other is to use fixed sector size, as it is for
> now, but 
>       align boundaries at a device driver level.
>       (omit)
>        I don't know which way is better. What do you think?
> I wrote in last article:
>       I think to set the GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE as the least.
>       (As far as I know, The least hardware sector size is 
>       128 bytes.) and add the variable to 'struct grub_disk'. 
>       Its variable stores 
>        sector size(blocks per sector).
> In addition, Let me talk about the recent PC-9800 patch.
> I use the GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE in a meaning of default sector size(=512).
> and add the variable 'sector_size' to 'struct grub_disk'. 
> GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE is used to initialize the 'sector_size'.
> GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE is replaced with 'sector_size' in most case.

Just a quick comment. Should we one day have direct support for CD-ROM's
or such devices which have larger sector sizes, I would propose that
this information should be dynamic and device specific. This change
probably causes some issues about how should grub be installed on
devices having sector size != 512. And should there be emulation layer
for 512 byte sector size? At least El Torito does provide this...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]