From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:20:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:20:28 -0400 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:38406 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:20:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] blkgetsize64 ioctl To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 02:23:34 +0100 (BST) Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, bcrl@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, michael_e_brown@dell.com, tytso@mit.edu In-Reply-To: <200108310115.BAA318386@vlet.cwi.nl> from "Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl" at Aug 31, 2001 01:15:50 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > one needs (1) a test in ll_rw_blk.c that uses not the size in 1024-byte blocks > but in 512-byte sectors, and (2) a set-blocksize ioctl. > And this latter is needed for other reasons as well. > > Maybe I should resubmit some such patch fragments? If you can doit cleanly - yes