From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 3 08:00:58 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id IAA00540 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 1995 08:00:58 -0700 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA00531 ; Wed, 3 May 1995 08:00:55 -0700 Received: (dyson@localhost) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) id IAA00574; Wed, 3 May 1995 08:00:31 -0700 From: John Dyson Message-Id: <199505031500.IAA00574@Root.COM> Subject: Re: NetBSD supports LBA and large (EIDE) drives To: mycroft@ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Hannum) Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 08:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, paul@isl.cf.ac.uk, phk@ref.tfs.com, terry@cs.weber.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199505031237.IAA12969@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> from "Charles M. Hannum" at May 3, 95 08:37:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 986 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Don't bother, I did, they have what you could call "very rudimentary > LBA support", in the commercial sense of the wording... > > That's an interesting assertion, considering the driver does exactly > what the standard allows it to do -- namely, use logical block > numbers. > > It would have been more correct to say: Don't bother, I did, they have what you could call "very rudimentary *EIDE* support", in the commercial sense of the wording... But, our current IDE driver is very rudimetary in the *EIDE* area too. When I made the last set of changes to wd.c, I just did not think that LBA was that necessary, considering the TRUE EIDE support coming. The Multi-block and the 32Bit access (done by another contributor) can both make significant performance improvements. Maybe I should have added the 20 or so lines to get LBA support????? My goal was to keep from breaking the driver, while getting the desired performance improvements. John dyson@root.com