[haiku-development] Re: Review needed for Sector Size not being reported correctly bug
- From: Kushal Singh <kushal.spiderman.singh@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:31:55 +0000
Also one more point that I missed in my most recent mail
On Sun Feb 22 2015 at 8:55:14 PM Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The block_size field doesn't have a corresponding content_block_size
> field. The rationale for this is that partitioning systems don't specify
> block sizes for partitions they define. They just have a block size they
> use for defining/interpreting partition offsets and sizes. So, in fact,
> they have a content block size, just as file systems have a content
> block size. Since there is no other block size for a partition, the
> field has simply been named block_size instead of content_block_size.
>
> There is another block size value for a partition namely block device
block size (aka sector).Kindly note that the first value noticed while
scanning ( as also seen in the syslog ) ( just before scanning) is the
sector size which after scanning turns to file block size. So initially the
value it gets ( after reading geometry of device) "is" the sector size this
value later gets overwritten to content block size.
Another suggestion ( for fixing the issue) that I probably missed in my
previous mail is
4)Adding a sector_size field. Not only would that solve the entire problem
, but on the other hand make it really easy to access.
Sorry for sending two mails not not one.
Thanks for helping
Kushal :)
PS: Just in case you missed the last mail
https://www.freelists.org/post/haiku-development/Review-needed-for-Sector-Size-not-being-reported-correctly-bug,2
Other related posts:
