OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 02:14 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>>>> Ah, blkdev_issue_discard() assumes blocksize is 512bytes, um...
>>>
>>> Doesn't everything? I did consider using q->hardsect_size, but decided
>>> that was probably the wrong thing to do. I don't know. Jens?
>>
>> My point is fs-blocksize vs hard sector size.
>>
>> In FAT patch, it's passing the number of fs-blocks, not number of hard
>> sectors.
>
> Ah, bio->bi_sector has same issue too.
I'm not sure whether it's good interface. However, we would have to
convert like following from fs-blocksize to 512...
int sb_issue_discard(sruct super_block *sb, sector_t blocknr, unsigned blocks)
{
sector_t sector = blocknr << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9);
/*
* this should check overflow, or caller should?
* and there is no point to sectors based on 512 temporarily,
* so we should pass bytes directly?
*/
unsigned nr_sects = blocks << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9);
return blkdev_issue_discard(sb->s_bdev, sector, nr_sects);
}
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
