From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 21 18:08:34 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id SAA23027 for current-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:08:34 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA23019 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:08:30 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA27941; Mon, 21 Aug 95 19:10:10 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9508220110.AA27941@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Changing DEV_BSIZE To: current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 19:10:10 MDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Oops! Sent that one without a message body! 8-). I want to up the size of DIRBLKSIZE in ufs/ufs/dir.h to play around with some things I was playing around with before the VM changes. The dir.h code says that the DIR_BLKSIZ needs to be DEV_BSIZE to make any atomicity guarantees... this wasn't the case in the previous code. I'd like to know if making the DIRBLKSIZ 1204 (ie: DEV_BSIZE * 2) will result in problems. It seems to me that the disks are accessed in terms of pages in any case, and the comment in dir.h that says: * A directory consists of some number of blocks of DIRBLKSIZ * bytes, where DIRBLKSIZ is chosen such that it can be transferred * to disk in a single atomic operation (e.g. 512 bytes on most machines). Is in fact outdated and incorrect -- even on older pre-VM changes code, I'd think... Does anyone see a problem with this? Note that I'm not proposing this change for the generic case of everyone's UFS... just mine. If there *is* a 512 byte limit in effect here, can I up DEV_BSIZE to get around it? Is this just artificial crap to deal with frags? Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.