On 03/16/2010 11:37 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
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.
Dropping any mention of CHS seems to be the only sensible thing. Why
waste any time to continue some myth about drives that no modern
hardware supports (and then have the joy of explaining that to users)?
Talking about it only confuses people and in the worst case, could cause
them to misalign their partitions by clinging to these pretend borders :-)
ric
--
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
