On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:00:14AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Yes, it should.
> > And no "ignoring". And no "continue". E.g.:
> >
> > printk(" %s: warning: p%d exceeds device capacity.\n", ...);
> >
>
> So you're saying that after detecting this inconsistency we should proceed
> to use the partition anyway?
>
> For what reason?
The normal situation is that partitions are contained within
the disk. In the normal situation the test is superfluous.
Suppose the test fails. Why might that be? There isn't really
a good scenario where this is a mistake. In all the (rare) cases
that I can imagine, it would make matters worse to reject the
partition and make access impossible (or at least more difficult).
Case 1: The kernel is mistaken about the size of the disk.
(There are commands to clip a disk to a certain capacity,
there are jumpers to tell a disk that it should report a certain
capacity etc. Usually this is because of BIOS bugs. In bad cases
the machine will crash in the BIOS and hence fail to boot if
the disk reports full capacity.)
In such cases actually accessing the blocks of the partition
may work fine, or may work fine after running an unclip utility.
I wrote "setmax" some years ago precisely for this reason.
Case 2: There was a messy partition table (maybe just a rounding
error) but the actual filesystem on the partition is contained
in the physical disk. Now using the filesystem goes without problem.
Case 3: Both partition and filesystem extend beyond the end of the disk.
In forensic or debugging situations one often uses a copy of the start
of a disk. Now access beyond the end gives an expected I/O error.
Andries
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
