From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 3 15:47:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2131065677; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:47:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76818FC13; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id SAA14943; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:47:21 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Ny5ZA-000906-S6; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:47:20 +0300 Message-ID: <4BB76308.6010309@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:47:20 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100321) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tijl Coosemans References: <3a142e751003190508x6a06868ene2e8fd9ddd977f66@mail.gmail.com> <4BB644CA.4000807@freebsd.org> <4BB64615.9060601@freebsd.org> <201004031707.34650.tijl@coosemans.org> <4BB75E54.4080405@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4BB75E54.4080405@icyb.net.ua> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov , Bruce Evans Subject: Re: newfs_msdos and DVD-RAM X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:47:24 -0000 on 03/04/2010 18:27 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 03/04/2010 18:07 Tijl Coosemans said the following: >> I'm not sure the second paragraph is worth supporting, but the first >> seems to say that 32k limit you have in your patch only applies to >> disks with 512 byte sectors. For disks with larger sectors it would >> be proportionally larger. > > Last sentence is your own conclusion I guess? > Please read this whole thread to see why it doesn't work that way in practice. > At least for present FreeBSD. OTOH, perhaps you are right and we should consider either bumping MAXBSIZE or retiring it. -- Andriy Gapon