[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100317025101.GA13339@guarana.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:51:01 +1100
From: Kevin Easton <caf@...rana.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: ATA 4 KiB sector issues.
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 00:20 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
...
> > Well, the thing is that
> >
> > * Anything remotely modern (>= XP) doesn't give a hoot about cylinder
> > alignment.
> >
> > * Anything older (<= 2000) is very likely to get confused with custom
> > geometry starting from the BIOS itself. For those cases, the only
> > thing we can do is aligning partitions to cylinders abiding BIOS
> > supplied geometry parameters which will usually be 255/63.
> >
> > 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.
James / Tejun,
Can't we fix the problem by defaulting to aligning partitions to
start on an LBA that is a multiple of 64260 ?
Such partitions will always be 4KiB-aligned, *and* start-of-cylinder
aligned (assuming 255/63, as seems to be the norm).
Sure, that reduces your partition granularity to almost-32-MiB, but
that's pretty small potatoes these days (and it's only a *default*, so
you could always override that if you really cared, and didn't need
the compatibility).
- Kevin
--
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