>>>>> "Mikael" == Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> We still haven't been given a comprehensive explanation. "It breaks >> something for someone" doesn't really give us much to work with... Mikael> I don't really see what it is you're looking for when it comes Mikael> to "more information"? The physical block size is reported in IDENTIFY DEVICE word 106 which hasn't been and isn't used for anything else. So nothing should be looking there unless it is 4KB sector-aware. I've been testing a variety of drives with 4KB sectors for well over a year. All of them correctly reporting the physical block size. The only real problems I have found during testing have been missing SCSI-ATA translation or incorrect alignment reporting (SCSI and ATA express things differently). It's bad enough that our I/O stack has to deal with hordes of USB ATA bridge devices that are unintentionally broken. But now we are talking production disk drives that were intentionally neutered. And we're not being told why. Obviously some of this might fall into NDA territory. And that's fair enough. My gripe is that nothing has been done to substantiate the issue. A problem that apparently warranted blowing away years of industry-wide standardization, implementation, and testing efforts. That's no small thing in my book. I also want to be assured that the real root cause gets fixed. We obviously want future drives to be both standards-compliant and accurate in their reporting. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- 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
