Hello, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Couldn't the "fix" also just be a note to users to disable ignore_hpa >>> if they notice that there raid arrays are not assembling correctly? >> I don't know. If it doesn't work automatically, the solution really >> isn't worth much. People generally don't (shouldn't need to) have any >> idea what HPA is. It basically boils down to "Linux doesn't support >> RAID". :-) >> >> Maybe we should just put this issue to the rest and strongly advise >> people against BIOS raids. > > That's a bit too far :-). The real issue is that Linux is ignoring a > property of the platform. To me ignoring HPA is like ignoring an e820 > reserved memory region. You might be able to get away with it > sometimes, but other times it breaks. Well, somewhat but not quite. The difference is with backward compatibility and the fact that HPA has been used for many different creative ;-) purposes including working around BIOS limitations. > However, in the end I think having 'alt_size' available is a useful > mechanism for discovering and handling the ignore_hpa=1 case. The > policy about when to trust it can be left to userspace. Pushing this in the kernel without updating dm-raid is kind of pointless. Who should I be poking to get the userland part moving? Thanks. -- tejun -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
