On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Sandeep K Sinha > <sandeepksinha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Well, >> >> I don't understand the reason why we keep the number of blocks in >> multiple of 512 bytes. > > I guess because that is generally the default sector size, and to do a > bio you really deal in terms of sectors not blocks. > IMHO, I think this should go now. The calculations in terms of 512 bytes sector size while operating with bio can be done there as well. If we have the block size and number, we can calculate the required info at any point. The current implementation just gives a wrong meaning as "no of allocated blocks". This should just be the number in terms of the file system block size. > Thanks - > Manish > Thanks. >> I mean, if we have allocated 1 block, this value is shown as 8, 16 for >> 2 and so on.... for a 4KB file system block size. >> >> Is there any specific reason for the same ? >> Any clues ? >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Sandeep. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "To learn is to change. Education is a process that changes the learner." >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with >> "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ >> >> > -- Regards, Sandeep. "To learn is to change. Education is a process that changes the learner." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
