From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 9 03:39:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA19275 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:39:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from bird.te.rl.ac.uk (bird.te.rl.ac.uk [130.246.19.162]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA19269 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:39:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tmb@rcru.rl.ac.uk) Received: from rcru.rl.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bird.te.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA07810; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:38:48 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from tmb@rcru.rl.ac.uk) Message-Id: <199809091038.LAA07810@bird.te.rl.ac.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.1 12/23/97 To: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Co=EFdan?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) cc: Bruce Evans , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [LONG PATCH] Re: 2048-byte sector support for DOS filesystem. In-reply-to: Your message of "09 Sep 1998 10:18:41 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 11:38:47 +0100 From: Mark Blackman Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id DAA19271 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Bruce Evans writes: > > > Such is my understanding. Somebody in the CAM team will have to > > > confirm it. > > CAM should have no affect on this, since the driver already supports > > 2048-byte sectors. msdosfs doesn't support them. It begins by > > attempting to read a 512-byte boot sector... > > Ah. I was thinking of the inability of the od driver to handle media > with >512 byte sectors. Then this is a different problem altogether, > which the second patch in kern-7210 addresses: [patch omitted] Thanks for clearing that up for me. So in summary, the od/scsi-related patches in kern-7210 are superceded by the CAM work, but the msdosfs-related patches are still meant to be applied if you want this 2048-byte block functionality in msdosfs. This then would imply (questions of labour aside) that the msdosfs-related patches are appropriate for inclusion in CURRENT at some convenient point, no? I do understand that there literally hundreds of more important things for the kernel gods to address, but I just want to add my (possibly irrelevant) vote for increasing it's priority somewhat. Cheers, Mark Blackman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message