[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B9FA59E.1000402@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:37:02 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
CC: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Taylor <Daniel.Taylor@....com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>,
tytso@....edu, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, irtiger@...il.com,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, aschnell@...e.de,
knikanth@...e.de
Subject: Re: ATA 4 KiB sector issues.
Hello,
On 03/17/2010 12:23 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> So, using custom geometry doesn't help compatibility at all.
>
> Our partitioning tool still obey the integral cylinder rule ... we can
> argue about whether they should, but what we need is a strategy for
> fixing what is rather than what should be.
The updated ones don't anymore. They just align to 1MiB + whatever
the drive requests for offset (the offset-by-one thing). They will
basically behave the same as windows vista/7 ones, so it's already
fixed. What we can argue is whether adding CHS tricks on top to make
those larger alignments somewhat meaningful w/ CHS interpretation too,
which I'm objecting on the ground that it doesn't help compatibility
at all.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists