Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> <shrug> I suppose... >>>> >>>> It just seems like a nasty hack, but unfortunately I don't see >>>> anyone stepping up to do it properly -- with a DM device >>>> automatically layered on top that splits the device into separate >>>> regions: one block device for the 'regular' area, and one for the >>>> HPA. >>> Isn't that more hacky? I don't know. All that dm needs to know is >>> the location of the metadata which is located w.r.t. the end of the >>> device which might be at a different location if BIOS tried to pull >>> silly stunts. So, exporting the size BIOS might have used seems like >>> a straight forward solution to me. >> "<shrug> I suppose" is basically a reluctant ack, in the absence of other >> solutions :) >> > > 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. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
