Re: [PATCH] sector_t overflow in block layer

From: Stephen C. Tweedie
Date: Fri May 19 2006 - 15:40:26 EST


On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 17:23 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:

> I looked at that also, but it isn't clear from the use of "b_size" here
> that there is any constraint that b_size is a power of two, only that it
> is a multiple of 512. Granted, I don't know whether there are any users
> of such a crazy thing, but the fact that this is in bytes instead of a
> shift made me think twice.

Yeah. It was very strongly constrained to a power-of-two in the dim and
distant past, when buffer_heads were only ever used for true buffer-
cache data (the entire IO path had to be special-cased for IO that
wasn't from the buffer cache, such as swap IO.)

But more recently it has been a lot more relaxed, and we've had patches
like Jens' "varyIO" patches on 2.4 which routinely generated odd-sized
b_size buffer_heads when doing raw/direct IO on unaligned disk offsets.

But in 2.6, I _think_ such paths should be going straight to bio, not
via submit_bh. Direct IO certainly doesn't use bh's any more, and
pretty much any other normal disk IO paths are page-aligned. I might be
missing something, though.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at