From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 6 05:28:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F2437B401 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 05:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp-ext.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.157]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882BF43F93 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 05:28:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.3p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h76CSEhV009547 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:28:14 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.3p2/8.12.3/Submit) id h76CSDKs009546 for fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:28:13 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:28:13 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy To: fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030806122813.GA9346@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20030804115818.GA68027@comp.chem.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030804115818.GA68027@comp.chem.msu.su> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Subject: Re: FFS addressing unit X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:28:18 -0000 On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:58:18PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > While poring over in order to better understand the > internals of FFS, I noticed that there is a number of comments in > the file refering to a certain "filesystem address." There is also > a macro named fsbtodb() for turning "filesystem block numbers into > disk block addresses," according to its description. However, it > seems to be the fragment size that actually serves as the filesystem > addressing unit in all the relevant super-block fields, including > fs_fsbtodb. Is my conclusion correct? If so, I'd rather clarify > those comments, so new developers won't confuse fragments with > blocks when doing RTFS. For interested parties: I've been told in a private reply that it was indeed a fragment that was a primary addressing unit in FFS. -- Yar