> What experience? The only reason that I have heard for unlocking it is About ten years of distributions, drive hiding magic for old BIOSes and other pain. > to maintain compatibility with the old ide driver which did so. What > reason does Linux have to access an area of the disk that the system has > made clear it should not? It's unfortunate you won't listen but continue to spout stuff from a standard no vendor, no OS and no product ever followed. ATA is not built on strict adherance to formal standards, nor is the PC. > What part to you disagree with? That the compromise in place can have > the benefits of both, but the drawbacks of neither? That there is any point doing anything but always unlocking. > I understand that dmraid could work around the problem, but there should > not be a problem in the first place. The system has asked that we not > touch that part of the disk I see no point continuing this discussion if all you want to do is wave a 'standard' that isn't followed by anyone and breaks stuff and demand we follow it. Always unlock in the kernel, make both sets of geometry available via sysfs and then fix dmraid. It's an easy problem to solve and because dmraid knows a lot about fakeraid stuff it also knows enough to peer in various locations and figure out which to use - something that the kernel quite intentionally does not. Alan -- 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
