On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:14 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 16:06 -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote: > > > > Was there any resolution as to how large disk drives would be handled > > > > if their interface did not support the "capacity" request that would > > > > tell how large they were? > > > > > > Realistically no ... unless someone comes up with a reliable heuristic > > > to give us the size. > > > > I posted a patch to allow the user to override the reported capacity: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=140993840113445&w=2 > > > > Nobody responded to it. > > Sorry, meant to. In principle I'm OK with this as the lever for the > hack (largely because it means we don't need to do anything) but will > the distributions support it? While I can't speak for the distributions, it's reasonable to assume that if something becomes part of the upstream kernel then they will include it. > OK, but I still don't understand how windows gets the partition table on > there in the first place ... that must surely be some sort of guess the > disk size hack. It's simpler than that: The drive is attached directly to the computer (i.e., via SATA rather than USB) when the partition table is created. With no USB-SATA bridge chip to mess things up, there's no problem determining the correct capacity. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
