On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 04:10 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 01:40 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > >> Perhaps, after checking cluster-chain corruption is better. Thanks. > > > > That can be done, but not like that, I think. At the point you added the > > blkdev_issue_discard() call, the value of 'cluster' has already changed. > > > > So if the chain being freed is clusters 10, 11 and 12, your version of > > the patch will attempt to discard clusters 11, 12 and 0xFFFF (EOF). > > + fat_clus_to_blknr(sbi, fatent.entry), > > No, no. I used fatent.entry, not cluster. Ah, OK. Sorry, I misread it :) > > 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. > > >> blkdev_issue_discard() takes bytes, > > > > -EPARSE. It takes sectors at the moment -- do you mean you _want_ it to > > take bytes? > > Yes and no. I guess bytes or _fs_-blocksize is good interface for fs. OK. I'll do the latter; thank you. -- dwmw2 -- 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
